From Edgeworth to Econophysics: A Methodological Perspective

Drakopoulos, Stavros A. and Katselidis, Ioannis (2013): From Edgeworth to Econophysics: A Methodological Perspective.

Abstract

Although most of the marginalist economists’ methodology was influenced by 19th century classical physics, the work of second generation marginalist Francis Ysidro Edgeworth represents the highest point of classical physics influence to the development of mainstream economic methodology. Edgeworth’s close parallelism between celestial and social mechanics expressed in his analogies between utility and energy and the principle of utility maximization to maximum energy, are important indications of the physics scientific ideal for economics. Subsequent leading theorists were not as explicit, although economic theory continued to be influenced by physics scientific ideal as the work of Pareto, Fisher and Samuelson indicates. However, the physics methodological framework has made a recent reappearance in the relatively new field of econophysics. Although there are methodological similarities, there are also important differences between mainstream economics and econophysics. Econophysicists’ emphasis to statistical mechanics rather to mechanical models, their reservations towards rational agent theory and their rejection of many standard assumptions of mainstream economics, are examples of such differences. This might also explain the resistance of mainstream economic theorists to incorporate econophysics into economics. The paper examines the above from a methodological viewpoint. It also discusses the possible reasons for this historical development and its implications for economic methodology.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Economic Method, Econophysics, Edgeworth
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A12 - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General > B00 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B40 - General

References

Ausloos, M., Clippe, P., Miskiewicz, J. and Pekalski, A. (2004), “A (reactive) lattice-gas approach to economic cycles”, Physica A, 344 (1-2): 1-7.

Baccini, B. (2007), “Edgeworth on the foundations of ethics and probability”, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 14 (1): 79-96.

Ball, P. (2006), “Culture crash”. Nature, 441: 686-688.

Black, F., and Scholes, M. (1973), “The pricing of options and corporate liabilities”, Journal of Political Economy, 81: 637-654.

Bouchaud, J. P. (2009), “The (Unfortunate) Complexity of the Economy”, Econo-Physics Forum, 0904.0805: 1–9.

Bouchaud J. P. and Potters M. (2000), Theory of Financial Risks. From Statistical Physics to Risk Management, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burda, Z., Jurkiewics, J. and Nowak, M. A., (2003), “Is Econophysics a solid science?” Acta Physica Polonica B, 34, 87.

Bruni, L. and Guala, F (2001), “Vilfredo Pareto and the Epistemological Foundations of Choice Theory”, History of Political Economy, 33: 21-49.

Carbone, A., Kaniadakis, G, and. Scarfone, A. M. (2007), “Where do we Stand on Econophysics?”, Physica A, 382: xi-xiv.

Chakraborti, A., Toke, I., Patriarca, M. and Abergel, F. (2011a), “Econophysics Review: I. Empirical facts”, Quantitative Finance, 11(7): 991-1012.

Chakraborti, A., Toke, I., Patriarca, M. and Abergel, F. (2011b), “Econophysics Review: II. Agent-based models”, Quantitative Finance, 11(7): 1013-1041.

Collander, D. (2007), “Edgeworth’s Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, (2): 215-225.

Creedy, J. (1980), “Some Recent Interpretations of Mathematical Psychics”, History of Political Economy, 12 (2): 267-76.

Dow, S. (2002), Economic Methodology: An Inquiry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Drakopoulos, S. A. (1994), “Some Implications of the New Physics for Economic Methodology”, South African Journal of Economics, 62 (4): 198-209.

Drakopoulos, S. A. (1997), “Origins and Development of the Trend Towards Value-free Economics”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 19: 286-300.

Edgeworth, F. Y. (1877), New and Old Methods of Ethics or “Physical Ethics” and “Methods of Ethics”, Oxford: James Parker and Co. Also in Newman (ed.) (2003).

Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881), Mathematical Psychics: An Essay of the Application of Mathematics to Moral Sciences, London: Kegan Paul.

Edgeworth, F. Y (1885), “Methods of statistics”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Jubilee volume: 181-217.

Edgeworth, F. Y. (1887), Observations and Statistics: An essay on the Theory of Errors of Observation and the first Principles of Statistics (read 25 May 1885), Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, XIV(II): 138-69.

Farmer J. D., Shubik M., and Smith E. (2005), “Is Economics the Next Physical Science?” Physics Today, 58 (9), September: 37-46.

Fisher, I. (1892), Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Gallegati M., Keen, S., Lux, T., Ormerod, P. (2006), “Worrying trends in econophysics” Physica A, 370: 1-6.

Gingras, Y and Schinckus, C (2012), “The Institutionalization of Econophysics in the Shadow of Physics”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 34 (1):109-130.

Jovanovic, F. and Schinckus C. (2011), ‘‘Econophysics: A New Challenge for Financial Economics?’’, Working paper. University of Québec at Montréal.

Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2013), “Toolism! A Critique of Econophysics”, MPRA paper, No 46630.

Keen, S. (2003), “Standing on the toes of pygmies: Why econophysics must be careful of the economic foundations on which it builds”, Physica A, 324: 108-116.

Keen, S. (2011), Debunking Economics. London, New York, NY: Zed Books, rev. edition.

Lewin, S. (1996), “Economics and Psychology: Lessons for Our Own Day From the Early Twentieth Century”, Journal of Economic Literature, XXXIV: 1293-1323.

Lo, A. W. and Mueller, M. T., Warning: Physics Envy May be Hazardous to Your Wealth! (March 12, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1563882 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1563882.

Lux, T., (2005), “Emergent statistical wealth distributions in simple monetary exchange models: a critical review”. In Proceedings of the Econophysics of Wealth Distributions, edited by A. Chatterjee, S. Yarlagadda, and B.K. Chakrabarti, pp. 51-60, Berlin: Springer.

Mantegna R. N. and Stanley H. E. (2000), An Introduction to Econophysics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCauley, J. L. (2004), Dynamics of Markets: Econophysics and Finance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

McCauley, J. L. (2006), “Response to ‘Worrying trends in econophysics”, Physica A, 371: 601-609.

McLure, M. (2001), Pareto, Economics and Society: The Mechanical Analogy, London: Routledge.

McLure M. (2010), “Pareto, Pigou and Third-party Consumption: Divergent Approaches to Welfare Theory with Implications for the Study of Public Finance”, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 17: 635-57.

Mirowski, P. (1989), More heat than light: Economics as social physics, physics as nature’s economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Mirowski, P. (1994), Marshalling the unruly atoms: Understanding Edgeworth’s career. In Edgeworth on Chance, Economic Hazard and Statistics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Newman, P. (1987), Edgeworth, Francis Ysidro. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman (eds), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, vol. II. London: MacMillan, pp. 84-98.

Pareto, V. (1896-97) [1971], Corso di Economia Politica [Cours d’ÉconomiePolitique]. Torino: Unione Tipographico-Editrice Torinese.

Pareto, V. (1897), “The New Theories of Economics”, Journal of Political Economy, 5: 485-502.

Pareto, V. (1971) [1907], Manual of Political Economy, (transl. by A. Schwier), London: MacMillan.

Rickles, D. (2007). ‘‘Econophysics for Philosophers.’’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38 (4): 948–978.

Rosser, B. Jr. (2008), ‘‘Debating the Role of Econophysics’’, Working paper. James Madison University, Harrisonburg.

Samuelson, P., (1947), Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Samuelson, P., (1998), “How Foundations Came to Be”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36: 1375-1386.

Săvoiu, G. and Iorga–Simăn. (2008), ‘‘Some Relevant Econophysics’ Moments of History, Definitions, Methods, Models and New Trends’’, Romanian Economic and Business Review, 3 (3): 29-41.

Schinckus, C. (2010a), ‘‘What Can Econophysics Contribute to Economics?’’ Working paper. University of Québec at Montréal.

Schinckus, C. (2010b), ‘‘Econophysics and Economics: Sister Disciplines?’’, American Journal of Physics, 78 (4): 325-27.

Schinckus, C. (2010c), ‘‘Is Econophysics a New Discipline? A Neopositivist Argument’’, Physica A, 389: 3814-3821.

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

Stanley, H., Gabaix, X., Gopikrishnan, P. and Plerou, V. (2007), “Economic fluctuations and statistical physics: quantifying extremely rare and less rare events in Finance”, Physica A, 382: 286-301.

Stigler, S. M. (1986), The History of Statistics, Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press.

Tobin, J. (1985), “Neoclassical Theory in America: J. B. Clark and Fisher”, American Economic Review, 75 (6): 28-38.

Tobin, J. (1987), Fisher, Irwin, In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman (eds), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, vol. II. London: MacMillan, pp. 369-276.

Wong, S. (1978), The Foundations of Paul Samuelson’s Revealed Preference Theory, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.