Tony Lawson’s Critique of Modern Economics and his Contribution to Heterodox Economics

Drakopoulos, Stavros A. (2025): Tony Lawson’s Critique of Modern Economics and his Contribution to Heterodox Economics.

Abstract

With a career spanning over many decades, Tony Lawson has made important contributions ranging from the philosophy of social sciences, history economic thought, methodology of economics, political economy, monetary theory, to the theory of ethics. His work concerning ontology has had a remarkable impact on economic methodologists in promoting the discussion of social ontology. Similarly, his articulation of critical realism has strengthened the criticism of heterodox economists against the economics orthodoxy regarding its lack of realism. Although not identified with a specific heterodox strand, it can be argued that Lawson’s work has promoted the development and the appeal of heterodox economics in many ways. A common feature of most heterodox economics relates to the criticism of mathematical formalism which is a core principle of orthodox economic theory. Another common characteristic is the heterodox emphasis on the crucial role of economic methodology for the discipline. Further, most heterodox economists call for a more realistic approach to the study of economic phenomena. This paper will discuss the facets of Lawson’s work which have exerted considerable influence on above- mentioned common attributes of heterodox economics. In particular, it will focus on: A. the argumentation countering the negative stance of mainstream economics towards economic methodology and the support of its usefulness as a subject of study. B. the critique of mainstream economic methodology and especially its use of mathematics. C. the analysis of the nature of heterodox economics. Lawson’s discourses on these themes have contributed towards a credible and coherent alternative to mainstream economics.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Economic Methodology; Heterodox Economics; Critique of Mainstream Economics; Tony Lawson
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925 > B20 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B40 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B50 - General

References

Backhouse, R. (1992), ‘Should we ignore methodology?’, Royal Economics Society Newsletter, July, pp. 4–5.

Backhouse, R. (2010), ‘Methodology in action’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 17(1): 3-15.

Bigo, V. and Negru, I. (2014), ‘Mathematical modelling in the wake of the crisis: A blessing or a curse? What does the economics profession say?’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(2): 329-347.

Blaug, M. (1980), The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blaug, M. (1997), ‘Ugly Currents in Modern Economics’, Options Politiques, September, 3-8

Blaug, M. (2003), ‘The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 25(2): 145-146.

Boland, L. (1982), The Foundations of Economic Method, London: George Allen & Unwin.

Boland, L. (1989), The Methodology of Economic Model Building: Methodology after Samuelson, London: Routledge.

Boland, L. (2003), The Foundations of Economic Method: A Popperian Perspective, London and New York: Routledge.

Caldwell, B. (1982), Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century, London: Routledge.

Caldwell, B. (1990), ‘Does methodology matter? How should it be practised?’, Finnish Economic Papers, 3(1): 46-76.

Caldwell, B. (2013), ‘Of Positivism and the History of Economic Thought’, Southern Economic Journal, 79: 753-767.

Chick, V. and Dow, S. (2005), ‘The Meaning of Open Systems’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(3): 363-381.

Coats, A. W. (1993), The Sociology and the Professionalization of Economics, London: Routledge.

Colander, D., Holt, R. P. and Rosser, J. B. (2004), ‘The changing face of mainstream economics’, Review of Political Economy, 16 (4): 485–500.

Davis, J. (2003), ‘Economic methodology since Kuhn’, in Samuels, W., Biddle, J. and Davis, J. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to the History of Economic Thought, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 571–87.

Davis, J. (2007), ‘The turn in economics and the turn in economic methodology’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 14(3): 275-290.

Davis, J. (2009), ‘The Nature of Heterodox Economics’ in Fullbrook, E. (ed.) Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and His Critics, London and New York: Routledge.

Dow, S. (2003), ‘Understanding the relationship between mathematics and economics’, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 25(4): 547-560.

Dow, S. (2009), ‘Plurality in Orthodox and Heterodox Economics’, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, 1(2): 73-96

Drakopoulos, S. (2016), ‘Economic Crisis, Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics’, Journal of Philosophical Economics, 10(1): 28-57.

Drakopoulos, S. (2023), ‘The Relation of Neoclassical Economics to other Disciplines: The case of Physics and Psychology’, in Negru, I. and Hawkins, P. (eds), Economic Methodology, History and Pluralism, London: Routledge, pp.12-30.

Drakopoulos, S. (2024), ‘Value Judgements, Positivism and Utility Comparisons in Economics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 189(3): 423-37.

Drakopoulos, S. and Katselidis, I. (2024), Economics and Psychology: An Uneasy History, London: Routledge.

Düppe, T. (2011), ‘How economic methodology became a separate science’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(2): 163-176.

Esposito, L. and Mastromatteo, G. (2024) ‘Behavioral economics and the nature of neoclassical paradigm’, Mind & Society, 23: 45–78.

Fisher, I. (1932), ‘Statistics in the service of economics’, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 28(181): 1-13.

Fleetwood, S. (2006), ‘Rethinking labour markets: A critical-realist-socioeconomic perspective’, Capital & Class, 30(2): 59-89.

Frantz, R. (2020), The Beginnings of Behavioral Economics: Katona, Simon, and Leibenstein’s X Efficiency Theory, London: Academic Press.

Frey, B. (2001), ‘Why economists disregard economic methodology’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 8(1): 41-47.

Friedman, M. (1953), ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’, in Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp.3-43.

Fullbrook, E. (ed.) (2009), Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and his Critics, London and New York: Routledge.

Hahn, F. (1965), ‘Introduction’, in Hahn, F. and Brechling. F (eds.), The Theory of Interest Rates: Proceedings of a Conference Held by the International Economics Association, London: Macmillan, pp. xi–xv.

Hahn, F. (1992a), ‘Reflections’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, No. 77, April.

Hahn, F. (1992b), ‘Answer to Backhouse: Yes’, Royal Economic Society Newsletter, no. 78, July.

Hahn, F. (1992c), ‘Autobiographical notes with reflections’, in Szenberg, M. (ed.), Eminent Economists: their Life Philosophies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.16-166.

Hands, D. (2001a), Reflection without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hands, D. (2001b), ‘Economic methodology is dead - Long live economic methodology: Thirteen theses on the new economic methodology’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 8(1): 49-63.

Hands, D. (2015), ‘Orthodox and heterodox economics in recent economic methodology’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 8(1): 61-81.

Hargreaves Heap, S. (2000), ‘Methodology now!’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 7(1): 95-108.

Hausman, D. (2001), ‘A new era for economic methodology’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 8(1): 65-68.

Heukelom, F. (2014), Behavioral Economics: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodgson G. (2000), ‘What is the essence of institutional economics?’, Journal of Economic Issues, 34(2): 317-329.

Hodgson G. (2009), ‘On the problem of formalism in economics’, in Fullbrook, E. (ed.) Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and his Critics, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 175-88.

Hodgson, G. (ed.) (2012), Mathematics and Modern Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hodgson, G. (2019), Is there a Future for Heterodox Economics? Institutions, Ideology and a Scientific Community, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hoover, K. (1995), ‘Why does methodology matter for economics?’, Economic Journal, 105: 715-734.

Ingrao, B. and Israel, G. (1990), The Invisible Hand, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kao, Y.-F. and Velupillai, K. (2015), ‘Behavioral economics: Classical and modern’, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(2): 236–271.

Keen, S. (2011), Debunking Economics. The Naked Emperor Dethroned? Second Revised and Expanded Edition, London and New York: Zed Books.

Kirman, A. (1989), `The Intrinsic Limits of Modern Economic Theory: The Emperor has no clothes', Economic Journal, 99 (395): 126-139.

Lawson, T. (1992), ‘Methodology: Non-optional and consequential’, Royal Economics Society Newsletter, October, pp. 2–3.

Lawson, T. (1994), ‘Why are so many economists opposed to methodology?’, Journal of Economic Methodology 1(1):105-34.

Lawson, T. (1997), Economics and Reality, London: Routledge.

Lawson, T (2001a), ‘Back to Reality’, Post-autistic economics newsletter, Issue no. 6; 8 May.

Lawson, T. (2001b), ‘The varying fortunes of the project of mathematising economics: an evolutionary explanation’, European Journal of Economic and Social Systems, 15(4): 241-268.

Lawson, T. (2001c), “Retour à la réalité”, Le Monde, 27 March 2001.

Lawson, T. (2003), Reorienting Economics, London and New York: Routledge.

Lawson, T. (2004), ‘Reorienting Economics: On heterodox economics, themata and the use of mathematics in economics’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(3): pp.329-340.

Lawson, T. (2005), ‘The nature of institutional economics’ Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 2: 7-20.

Lawson, T. (2006a), “Why Methodology”, Unpublished Manuscript. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369325523_Why_Methodology

Lawson, T. (2006b), ‘The Nature of Heterodox Economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30: 483–505.

Lawson, T. (2009a), ‘Contemporary economics and the crisis’, Real-world Economics Review, 50: 122-131.

Lawson, T. (2009b), ‘Heterodox Economics and Pluralism: reply to Davis’ in Fullbrook, E. (ed.) Ontology and Economics: Tony Lawson and His Critics; London and New York: Routledge.

Lawson, T. (2009c), ‘The current economic crisis: its nature and the course of academic economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(4): 759-77.

Lawson, T. (2012), ‘Mathematical Modelling and Ideology in the Economics Academy: competing explanations of the failings of the modern discipline?’ Economic Thought 1: 3-22.

Lawson, T. (2013), ‘What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics?’ Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(5): 947-83.

Lawson, T. (2015a), Essays on the Nature and State of Modern Economics, New York: Routledge.

Lawson, T. (2015b), ‘Central Fallacies of Modern Economics’, Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 135(2): 189–208.

Lawson, T. (2017), ‘What is wrong with modern economics, and why does it stay wrong?’ The Journal of Australian Political Economy, 80: 26-42.

Lawson, T. (2019a), The Nature of Social Reality: Issues in Social Ontology, New York: Routledge.

Lawson, T. (2019b), ‘Mathematical modelling in economics: seeking a rationale’, in Gagliardi, F. and Gindis, D. (eds), Institutions and Evolution of Capitalism, Chapter: 3, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.29–43.

Lawson, T. (2021), ‘Whatever happened to neoclassical economics?’, Revue de Philosophie Économique , 22(1): 39-84.

Lawson, T. (2022), ‘Social positioning theory’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 46(1): 1–39.

Lawson, T. (2023), ‘Categorisation, criticism and pluralism in context. Open and closed systems and the project of mathematical modelling in modern economics’, in Negru, I. and Hawkins, P. (eds), Economic Methodology, History and Pluralism, London: Routledge Publishers, pp.48-60.

Mearman, A., Berger, S. and Guizzo, D. (2020), What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with leading economists, Chapter 9: Tony Lawson, London: Routledge, pp.130-155.

McCloskey, D. (1983), ‘The Rhetoric of Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 21(2): 481–517.

Milonakis, D. (2017), ‘Formalising economics: social change, values, mechanics and mathematics in economic discourse’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41: 1367–1390.

Milonakis, D. and Fine, B. (2009), From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and the Historical in the Evolution of Economic Theory, London and New York: Routledge.

Mirowski, P. (1984), ‘Physics and the ‘Marginalist Revolution’’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8: 361-379.

Pratten, S. (2022), ‘Social positioning theory and Dewey’s ontology of persons, objects and offices’, Journal of Critical Realism, 21(3): 288–308.

Redman, D. (1993), Economics and the Philosophy of Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Seligman, B. (1969), ‘The Impact of Positivism on Economic Thought’, History of Political Economy, 1: 256-78.

Sent, E. M. (2004), ‘Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics’, History of Political Economy, 36: 735–760.

Stiglitz, J. (2019)[2010], ‘An Agenda for Reforming Economic Theory’, presentation at 2010 INET Conference at Kings College, Cambridge. Published in Frontiers of Economics in China-Selected Publications from Chinese Universities, Higher Education Press, vol. 14(2), pp. 149-167.

Weintraub, R. (2002), How Economics Became a Mathematical Science, Durham, NC, and London: Duke University Press.