The Relation of Neoclassical Economics to other Disciplines: The case of Physics and Psychology

Stavros, Drakopoulos (2021): The Relation of Neoclassical Economics to other Disciplines: The case of Physics and Psychology. Forthcoming in: Economic Methodology, History and Pluralism No. edited by I. Negru and P. Hawkins, Routledge Publishers, London.

Abstract

Since the emergence of the classical school, the scientific ideal of physical sciences has been a constant influence on economic theory and method. Its influence is still present in contemporary neoclassical economics. Similarly to the case of physics, classical economists were very open in incorporating psychological elements in the economic discourse. This openness towards psychology continued with prominent Marginalist economists, like Jevons and Edgeworth, who were eager to draw from psychological ideas found in earlier authors. In the first decades of the 20th century, a major conceptual change in economics took place which is also known as the Paretian turn. This conceptual change, initiated mainly by Vilfredo Pareto, and completed, in the first decades of the 20th century, by J. Hicks, R. Allen and P. Samuelson, attempted to remove all psychological notions from economic theory. The legacy of the Paretian turn can still be identified in the significant reluctance of the contemporary orthodox economic theory to incorporate the findings of the new behavioral economics, a field with a discernable psychological bent. This chapter argues that the history of the relation of those two subjects to economics can lead to some potentially useful observations concerning the nature of contemporary neoclassical economics. It will also be maintained that the relationship of neoclassical economics to physics ultimately constrained its interaction with psychology.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Economic Methodology; Economics and Psychology; Economics and Physics; History of Economic Thought
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B40 - General

References

REFERENCES Arrow, K. and Debreu, G. (1954) “Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy”, Econometrica, 22: 265–290.

Arrow, K. and Hahn, F. (1971) General Competitive Analysis, San Francisco: Holden-Day.

Backhouse, R. (2015) “Revisiting Samuelson’s Foundations of Economic Analysis”, Journal of Economic Literature, 53(2): 326–350.

Baddeley, M. (2013) Behavioural Economics and Finance, London and New York: Routledge.

Bentham, J. (1823) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Binmore, K. (1999) “Why experiment in economics?”, The Economic Journal, 109: F16-24.

Blaug, M. (1972) “Was there a Marginal Revolution?, History of Political Economy, 4:2: 269-280.

Blaug, M. (1999) “The formalist Revolution or What Happened to Orthodox Economics after World War II”, in R. Backhouse and J. Creedy, eds, From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Breslau, D. (2003) “Economics invents the economy: mathematics, statistics, and models in the work of Irving Fisher and Wesley Mitchell”, Theory and Society, 32: 379-411.

Bruni, L. (2010) “Pareto’s legacy in modern economics. The case of psychology”, Revue européenne des sciences sociales (European Journal of Social Sciences), XLVIII-146:93-111.

Bruni, L. and Guala, F. (2001) “Vilfredo Pareto and the epistemological foundations of choice theory”, History of Political Economy, 33: 21-49.

Bruni, L. and Sugden, R. (2007) “The road not taken: How psychology was removed from economics, and how it might be brought back”, The Economic Journal, 117: 146-173.

Bourdeau, M., Pickering, M., and Schmaus, W., (eds.), (2018), Love, Order & Progress, The Science, Philosophy and Politics of Auguste Comte, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Cairnes, J. (1875) The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy, London: Macmillan.

Camerer, C. and Loewenstein, G. (2004) “Behavioral economics: past, present and future” in Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M. (eds), Advances in Behavioral Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.3-51.

Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. (2005) “Neuroeconomics: how neuroscience can inform economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. XLIII, March, pp. 9-64.

Coats, A. W. (1976) “Economics and psychology: the death and resurrection of a research program”, in S. Latsis (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.43-64.

Colander, D., Holt, R. and Rosser, J. (2008) “The changing face of mainstream economics”, The Long Term View, 7:1, 31-42.

Davis, J. (2006) “The turn in economics: Neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism?”, Journal of Institutional Economics 2:1, 1-20.

Dow, S. (1987) “The Scottish political economy tradition”, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, November, pp. 335-48.

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

Dow, S. (2010) “The Psychology of Financial Markets: Keynes, Minsky and Emotional Finance”, in Dimitri B. Papadimitriou and L. Randall Wray (eds.), The Elgar Companion to Hyman Minsky. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 246-62.

Dow, S. (2013) “Formalism, rationality, and evidence: the case of behavioural economics”, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 6, No.3: 26-43.

Drakopoulos, S. A. (1997) “Origins and development of the trend towards value-free economics”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 19: 286-300.

Drakopoulos, S. A. (2011) “Wicksteed, Robbins and the emergence of mainstream economic methodology”, Review of Political Economy, 23: 461-70.

Drakopoulos, S. A and Katselidis, I. (2015) “From Edgeworth to Econophysics: A methodological perspective”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 22, 1, 77-95.

Drakopoulos, S. A and Katselidis, I. (2019) “Classical and pre-marginalist ideas on the relationship between economics and psychology”, History of Economic Ideas, vol.28 (1), 43-63.

Düppe, T. (2011) “How economic methodology became a separate science”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(2): 163-176. Earl, P. E. (1990) “Economics and psychology: a survey”, Economic Journal, vol. 100, 718–55.

Earl, P. E. (2016) The Evolution of Behavioural Economics, in Roger Frantz (ed.), Handbook of Behavioural Economics, London, Routledge, 5-17.

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

Elster, J. (2009), “Excessive ambitions”, Capitalism and Society, 4(2): 1-30.

Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (1999) “A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114: 817–868.

Fisher, I. (1892) [1965] Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Frey, B. and Benz, M. (2004) “From Imperialism to Inspiration: A Survey of Economics and Psychology”, in J. Davis, A. Marciano, and J. Runde (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, 61-83.

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

Goodwin, C. (2016) “Economics and psychology: Why the great divide?”, History of Political Economy, 48 (suppl. 1): 71-169.

Gordon, H. S. (1991) The History and Philosophy of Social Science, London, Routledge.

Hayakawa, H. and Venieris, Y. (1977) “Consumer interdependence via reference groups”, Journal of Political Economy, 85: 599–615.

Hicks J. and Allen, R.G.D. (1934) “A Reconsideration of the theory of value”, Economica, 1, pp.52-76.

Hands, D. W. (2010) “Economics, psychology, and the history of consumer choice theory”, Cambridge Journal of Economics 34 (4): 633-648.

Hausman, D. (1992) The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009), An Introduction to the History of Psychology, Sixth edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Hollander, S. (2012). John Stuart Mill on economic theory and method: Collected essays III. London: Taylor and Francis.

Ingrao, B. and Israel, G. (1990), The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science, Cambridge, Mass and London: The MIT Press.

Jaffe, W. (1976) “Menger, Jevons and Walras de-homogenized”, Economic Inquiry, 4: 511-524.

Jevons, W. S. (1871) The Theory of Political Economy, London: Macmillan.

Jevons, W. S. (1905) The Principles of Economics, London: Macmillan.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) “Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk”, Econometrica, 47: 263–291.

Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (1982) Judgment under Uncertainty: heuristics and biases,New York: Cambridge University Press.

Karayiannis, A. D. (2001), “Behavioural assumptions in Nassau Senior's economics”, Contributions to Political Economy, 20: 17-29.

Keynes, J.N. 1890 (1917) The Scope and Method of Political Economy, New York: Macmillan.

Lawson, T. (2012), “Mathematical modelling and ideology in the economics Academy: Competing explanations of the failings of the modern discipline?”, Economic Thought, 1(1): 3–22.

Lazear, E. (2000), “Economic imperialism”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1): 99–146.

Lewin, S. (1996) “Economics and psychology: lessons for our own day from the early Twentieth Century”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XXXIV: 1293-1323.

Levine, D. (2012) Is Behavioral Economics Doomed? The Ordinary versus the Extraordinary, Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.

Levitt, S. D. and List, J. A. (2008) “Homo economicus evolves”, Science, 319 (5865): 909-910.

Mäki, U. (2009) (ed.), The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mason, R. (2000) ‘‘The social significance of consumption: James Duesenberry’s contribution to consumer theory’’, Journal of Economic Issues, 34: 553–572.

Menger, C. (1879)[1963] Problems of Economics and Sociology, transl. by F. Nack, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Meek, R., (1972) “Marxism and Marginalism”, History of Political Economy, 4:2.

Mill, J. (1829/1869) Analysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind, London: Longmans Green Reader and Dyer.

Mill, J. S. (1844) Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, London: John W. Parker.

Milonakis, D. (2017) “Formalising economics: Social Change, values, mechanics and mathematics in economic discourse”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41:5, 1367-1390.

Mirowski, P. (1984) “Physics and the ‘marginalist revolution”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8: 361-379.

Mirowski, P. (1989) More heat than light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, J., ed., (2016) What is Neoclassical Economics?, London and New York: Routledge.

Muramatsu, R. (2009) “The death and resurrection of ‘economics with psychology’: remarks from a methodological standpoint”, Revista de Economia Politica, 29 (1): 62-81.

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

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

Pugno, M. (2014) “Scitovsky’s The Joyless Economy and the economics of happiness”, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 21: 278–303.

Rabin, M. (2002) “A perspective on psychology and economics”, European Economic Review, 46: 657–685.

Raphael, D. (1989) Adam Smith, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

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

Robbins, L. (1932) An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science London: Macmillan.

Ross, D. (2014) Philosophy of Economics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Samuelson, P. (1938) “A note on the pure theory of consumer's behaviour”, Economica, 5: 61-71.

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(3): 1375–1386.

Savage, L. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics, New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Say, J.B. (1803) Treatise on Political Economy, English edition, New York: A. M. Kelley (1964).

Schliesser, E. (2005) “Some principles of Adam Smith's Newtonian methods in the Wealth of Nations”, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 23 Part 1:33-74.

Screpanti, E. and Zamagni, S. (2005) An Outline of the History of Economic Thought, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Senior, N. W. (1836), An Outline of the Science of Political Economy, London, Clowes and Sons.

Sent, E-M. (2004) “Behavioral economics: how psychology made its (limited) way back into economics”, History of Political Economy, 36: 735-760.

Simon, H (1955) “A behavioral model of rational choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69 (1): 99-118.

Simon, H. (1979) “Rational decision making in business organizations”, American Economic Review, 69 (4), 493–513.

Smith, A. (1759/1976), The Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by Raphael, D. D. and Macfie, A. L., Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Smith, A. (1983) Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, edited by J. C. Bryce, The Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith.

Stigler, G. and Becker, G. (1977) “De gustibus non est disputandum”, The American Economic Review, 67: 76-90.

Thaler, R. (2016) “Behavioral Economics: Past, present and future”, American Economic Review, 106(7): 1577-1600.

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

Turk, M. (2012) “The mathematical turn in economics: Walras, the French mathematicians, and the road not taken”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 34 (2): 149 167.

von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944), Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Walras, L. (1871)[1965) Elements of Pure Economics, transl. by W. Jaffe, London: Allen and Unwin.

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

Weintraub, R. and Mirowski, P. (1994) The pure and the applied: Bourbakism comes to mathematical economics’, Science in Context, 7:2, 245-272.

Wicksteed, P. (1888) The Alphabet of Economic Science London: Macmillan.

Wicksteed, P. (1910) The Common Sense of Political Economy and Selected Papers and Reviews on Economic Theory, Vols. 1 & 2, L. Robbins (Ed., London: Routledge.

Wicksteed, P. (1894) Political economy and psychology, in: The Common Sense of Political Economy and Selected Papers and Reviews on Economic Theory, L. Robbins (Ed.), London: Routledge, 1933.

Zouboulakis, M. (2003) “L’ équation des échanges de Fisher et la loi de Boyle. Les limites de l’analogie physique en économie”, Économies et Societés, 33(12) : 2191-2206.