Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which economists have rebutted Soros’s views on market reflexivity and regulatory reform?
Executive summary
A number of academics and commentators have explicitly critiqued George Soros’s reflexivity idea or questioned its novelty and scientific status; critics named in the available reporting include Christopher Neely and contributors gathered in academic commentaries and edited volumes who argue mainstream economists largely ignored or rejected Soros’s framework [1] [2] [3]. Scholarly treatments—such as a critical essay by T. Lawson and an edited collection that assembles responses from at least thirteen scholars—offer systematic rebuttals or reservations about reflexivity’s clarity, modelling tractability, and contribution relative to existing traditions like Keynesian and Post‑Keynesian thought [4] [5] [3].
1. Christopher Neely: the Fed economist’s short, sharp rebuke
Christopher Neely of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis is quoted as calling Soros’s critique of economic research “ill‑founded,” a pointed rejection that appeared in reporting on Soros’s attempts to promote reflexivity after 2008; the ABC News piece highlights Neely’s dismissive line as emblematic of mainstream economists’ hostility to Soros’s claims [1].
2. Methodologists and philosophers: organized academic pushback
Academic journals and edited volumes document systematic critical engagement rather than mere anecdotal dismissal. The Journal of Economic Methodology and a Routledge volume collecting thirteen scholars show that many methodologists scrutinize reflexivity’s philosophical grounding, empirical content, and whether it truly adds to existing theories; these contributors provide structured critiques of Soros’s claims and argue reflexivity has often been ignored by mainstream economics [2] [3] [6].
3. T. Lawson and the “standards of scientific theory” critique
T. Lawson’s essay (summarized in the provided snippet) concedes reflexivity doesn’t meet prevailing standards of scientific theory and suggests either changing those standards or treating markets outside a scientific framework; Lawson thus accepts some of Soros’s motivations while rejecting reflexivity as meeting important scientific criteria [4].
4. Economists noting overlap with existing schools (and thus questioning novelty)
Several reviews and law/industry commentaries argue Soros’s ideas are not entirely new and that economists have long recognized bubbles and non‑equilibrium phenomena; one law review-style critique concluded reflexivity “fails to add any real understanding” because similar phenomena are acknowledged in other traditions, implying a rebuttal on grounds of originality rather than of empirical truth [7] [5].
5. Technical criticisms: modelling, clarity, and pervasiveness of reflexivity
Commentators and working papers emphasize that reflexivity is hard to formalize and model, which explains why many neo‑classical economists ignore it; critics such as Willett (cited in commentary) and others say Soros sometimes conflates different strands of economic thought and has not presented reflexivity in a tightly defined, model‑ready form [8] [5].
6. Pro‑reflexivity voices and contested relevance
Not all commentators reject Soros. Some practitioners and commentators—e.g., certain CFA Institute bloggers and hedge‑fund circles—acknowledge reflexivity’s practical insights and argue the 2008 crisis increased interest in alternatives to efficient‑markets orthodoxy; these sources present a competing viewpoint that reflexivity raises issues economists must confront even if it resists standard modelling [9] [10].
7. Why the disagreement matters for regulatory reform debates
Where critics dismiss reflexivity as unscientific or unoriginal, Soros and sympathetic scholars argue that reflexivity implies regulators must recognize feedback loops (beliefs affecting fundamentals) and therefore design policy to break self‑reinforcing bubbles; critics counter that existing economic frameworks (behavioural economics, adaptive markets, Post‑Keynesian theory) already supply policy‑relevant tools without adopting Soros’s framing wholesale [10] [5] [3].
8. Limitations of the available reporting
Available sources document named critics (Neely, Lawson, assembled scholars) and thematic criticisms (novelty, modelling, scientific standards), but they do not provide an exhaustive list of every economist who has rebutted Soros, nor do they fully reproduce each critic’s detailed arguments or empirical tests; available sources do not mention other specific individual mainstream economists beyond those cited here [1] [4] [2].
Conclusion: The public record assembled in academic symposia and journalism shows both explicit named rebuttals (Christopher Neely, T. Lawson) and broader scholarly skepticism collected in edited volumes and journal symposia. Disagreement clusters around reflexivity’s scientific status, its formalisability, and whether it truly adds to existing economic traditions—while practitioners and some scholars insist reflexivity identifies real market dynamics regulators should heed [1] [4] [2] [3].