Two disputes of methods, three constructivisms, and three liberalisms

Yefimov, Vladimir (2014): Two disputes of methods, three constructivisms, and three liberalisms.

Abstract

The paper proposes to reconsider radically the methodology and history of economics, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller’s historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey’s hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce’s pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Verein für Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of ‘science’ was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Methodenstreit; social constructivism; constructivist epistemology and ontology for economics; constructivist history of economics; economic policy and deliberative democracy; economic philosophy and discourse ethics, communitarian liberalism.
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A11 - Role of Economics ; Role of Economists ; Market for Economists; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A13 - Relation of Economics to Social Values; A - General Economics and Teaching > A1 - General Economics > A14 - Sociology of Economics; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B41 - Economic Methodology

References

Amadae S.M. (2003) Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy. The Cold War Orogins of Rational Choice Liberalism. Chacago : The University of Chicago Press.

Balabkins N. W. (1988) Not by Theory Alone . . . : The Economics of Gustav von Schmoller and Its Legacy to America. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.

Bazzoli L. et V. Dutraive (2014) « Lecture croisée de la philosophie de J. Dewey et de l'économie de J.R. Commons ». Revue économique, Vol. 65, No.2, pp. 357 – 372.

Berger P. and T. Luckmann. (1991) The Social Construction of Reality, London: Penguin Books.

Blaug M. (1992) The Methodology of Economics: Or, How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Blaug M. (1994) “Why I am not a Constructivist. Confession of an Unrepentant Popperian”. In Backhouse R. E. (Ed.) New Directions in Economic Methodology, London and New York: Routledge. pp. 111 – 139.

Blaug M. (1997) Economic Theory in Retrospect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bloor D. (1997) Wittgenstein, Rules and Institutions. London; New York: Routledge.

Blumer H (1969) Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Boyle R. (1690) The Christian Virtuoso showing that by being addicted to experimental philosophy, a man is rather assisted, than indisposed, to be a good Christian. London: T. H. R. B.

Burtt E.A. (2003) The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. NY : Dover Publications.

Callebaut W. (1993) Taking the Naturalistic Turn, or How Real Philosophy of Science is Done. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Coats A.W. (1993) The Sociology and Professionalization of Economics. British and American economic essays. Vol. 2. London and New York: Routledge.

Commons J. R. (1950) The Economics of Collective Action. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Cunningham W. (1894) “Why had Roscher so little influence in England ?”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 5, November, pp. 317 – 334.

Daniels H. (2008) Vygotsky and Research. London and New York: Routledge.

Davis D.B., D.W. Hands and U. Maki (Eds.) (1998) The Handbook of Economic Methodology, Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.

Dewey J. (1927), The Public and its Problems. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Dumez H. (1985) L’économiste, la science et le pouvoir : le cas Walras. Paris: PUF.

Düppe T. and E.R. Weintraub (2013) “Siting the New Economic Science: The Cowles Commission’s Activity Analysis Conference of June 1949. EHES Working Papers in Economic History No. 40.

Düppe T. and E.R. Weintraub (2014) Finding Equilibrium: Arrow, Debreu, McKenzie and the Problem of Scientific Credit. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Engels F. (2009) The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. New York: Cosimo Inc.

Fichte J.G. (1851) The Vocation of the Scholar. London: John Chapman.

Fleetwood S. (Ed.) (1999) Critical Realism in Economics. Development and Debate. London and New York: Routledge.

Fourcade M. (2009) Economists and Societies. Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

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

Furner M. O. (1975) Advocacy & Objectivity: A Crisis in the Professionalization of American Social Science 1865-1905. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.

Grimmer-Solem E. (2003) The Rise of Historical Economics and Social Reform in Germany1864 – 1894. Oxford : Clarendon Press.

Gribbin J. (2003) Science. A History. 1543 – 2001. London: Penguin Books.

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

Harré R. and P. Secord (1972) The Explanation of Social Behaviour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Harré R. (1883) Personal Being. A Theory for Individual Psychology.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Harré R. and G. Gillett (1994) The Discursive Mind. Thousand Oaks; London; New Dehli: Sage Publications.

Harré R.and M. Tissaw (2005) Wittgenstein and Psychology. A Practical Guide. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Harré R. (2009) “Saving Critical Realism”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 129 – 143.

Hay C. (2006) “Constructivist Institutionalism”, In Rhodes R.A.W., Binder S.A. et B.A. Rockman (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 56 – 74.

Hayek F.A. (1978) “The Errors of Constructivism”. In: F.A. Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 3 - 22.

Heilbroner R. . (1988) Behind the Veil of Economics: Essays in the Worldly Philosophy. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Co.

Heilbroner R. and W. Milberg (1995) The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heilbroner R. (2004) “Economics as Universal Science”. Social Research, Vol. 71, N° 3, pp. 615 – 632.

Hodgson G.M. (1988) Economics and Institutions, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Knorr Cetina K. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge. An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Knorr Cetina K. (1991) “Epistemic Cultures: Forms of Reason in Science”, History of Political Economy, Vol. 23, No 1, pp. 105 – 122.

Knorr Cetina K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures. How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour B. (1993) We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour B. and S. Woolgar (1979) Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Losangeles, London: Sage.

Latour, B. (1993) The Pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Latour B. (2000) “When things strike back: a possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences”. British Journal of Sociology. Vol. 51, N° 1. pp. 107-123.

Lee F. (2009) A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century. London and New York : Routledge.

Mill J.S. (1836) « On the definition and method of political economy ». In D.M. Hausman (Ed.) The Philosophy of Economics. An Anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.

Mill J.S. (1843) System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive Being a Connected View of the the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. London: Longmans. 1886.

Mini P. (1994) “Cartesianism in Economics”. In The Elgar Companion to Institutional and Evolutionary Economics, in two volumes, Hodgson, G.M., W.J. Samuels and M. R. Tool (Eds.). Aldershot: Edward Elgar. pp. 38 – 42.

Mirowski, P. E. (2012) The Cowles Commission as an anti-Keynesian Stronghold. In Duarte P. G. and G. T. Lima (Eds.). Microfoundations Reconsidered. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar. pp. 131-167.

North D.C. (2003) The Role of Institutions in Economic Development, Occasional paper No.1, New York and Geneva: Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations.

Peirce C.S. (1992) The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings, Vol. 1, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Peukert H. (2001a) “The Schmoller Renaissance”, History of Political Economy, Vol. 33, N° 1, Spring, pp. 71-116.

Peukert H. (2001b) “Bridging Old and New Institutional Economics: Gustav Schmoller and Douglass C. North, Seen with Oldinstitutionalists’ Eyes”, European Journal of Law and Economics , Vol. 11, N° 2, pp. 91-130.

Piaget J. (1970) Psychologie et épistémologie. Paris : Editions Denoël.

Priddat B. P. (1995) Die andere Ökonomie. Marburg: Metropolis.

Prigogine I. and I. Stengers (1985) Order out of Chaos. Man’s New Dialogue with Nature. London: Flamingo.

Rubinstein A. ‘2006) “Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist”. Econometrica, Vol. 74, No. 4 (July), pp. 865–883.

Rubinstein A. (2012) Economic Fables. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers. 2012.

Sachs J. (2011). The Price of Civilization. Economics and Ethics after the Fall. London : The Bodley Head.

Sage E.M. (2009) A Dubious Science. Political Economy and the Social Question in 19th-Century France. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.

Salin P. (2000) Lebéralisme. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.

Schellschmidt H. (1997) Ökonomische Institutionenanalyse und Sozialpolitik. Marburg: Metropolis.

Schmoller G. (1894) “The Idea of Justice in Political Economy”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 4 (March), pp. 1- 41.

Schmoller G. (1998) Historisch-ethnische Nationalökonomie als Kulturwissenschaft. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.

Selznick Ph. (2002) The Communitarian Persuasion. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Shapin S. (1994) A Social History of Truth. Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Shapin S. (1996) The Scientific Revolution. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Shapin S. and S. Schaffer (1985) Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press.

Smith B. (2013) “Document Acts”, In A. Konzelmann-Ziv, H. B. Schmid (eds.), Institutions, Emotions, and Group Agents. Contributions to Social Ontology, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London : Springer.

Steuart J. (1767) .An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy: being an Essay on the Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nations. Vol. I. London : A. Millar and T. Cadell.

Tribe K. (2002) Historical Schools of Economics: German and English. .Keele Economics Research Paper No 2, Keele University. Ulrich P. (2008) Integrative Economic Ethics: Foundations of a Civilized Market Economy. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Van Langenhove L. (Ed.). (2010) People and Society. Rom Harré and designing the social sciences. London and New York: Routledge.

Weintraub, E. R. (1991) Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weintraub E.R. (2001) “Making Economic Knowledge: Reflections on Golinski's Constructivist History of Science”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 23, No 2, pp. 277 – 282.

Wertsch J.V. (2007) “Mediation”. In The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky / edited by Harry Daniels, Michael Cole, James V. Wertsch. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. pp. 178 – 192.

Yefimov V. (2003) Economie institutionnelle des transformations agraires en Russie. Paris : l’Harmattan.

Yefimov V. (2009a) The institutional approach in economics and to economics (In Russian) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/48718/

Yefimov V. (2009b) Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/48173/

Yefimov V. (2010a) “Russian Agrarian Institutional System (Historical Constructivist Analysis)”. Journal of Economic Regulation, Vol. 1, No 3, 2010, pp. 8 – 91. (in Russian) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49112/8/MPRA_paper_49112.pdf

Yefimov V. (2010b) “Towards Discursive Economics (Methodology and history of economics reconsidered)”, The text of my talk 11 November 2010 at the seminar at the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science at London School of Economics. The text of the talk is available here http://institutional.narod.ru/yefimov/yefimovlse.doc and the slides here institutional.narod.ru/yefimov/yefimovlse.ppt.

Yefimov V. (2010c) « Vers une autre science économique (et donc une autre institution de cette science) ». Revue du MAUSS permanente, May 10 2010 (on line). http://www.journaldumauss.net/spip.php?article686

Yefimov V. (2011a) “Discourse Analysis in Economics: Methodology and history of economics reconsidered. Part 1. Another methodology of economic science”, Economic Sociology, Vol. 12, No 3, pp. 15 – 53. (in Russian) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49157/1/MPRA_paper_49157.pdf

Yefimov V. (2011b) “Discourse Analysis in Economics: Methodology and history of economics reconsidered. Part 2. Another history of economics and contemporaneity”, Journal of Economic Regulation, Vol. 2, No 3, pp. 5–79. (in Russian) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49111/1/MPRA_paper_49069.pdf

Yefimov V. (2013) “From Pleasure Machines to Moral Communities (Reflections on a New Book by Geoffrey Hodgson)”, Journal of Institutional Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (August), pp. 7-47. (in Russian) http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49156/1/MPRA_paper_49156.pdf

Yonay Y.P. (1998) The Struggle over the Soul of Economics. Institutional and Neoclassical Economists in America between the Wars. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.