Mainstream Aversion to Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics

Drakopoulos, Stavros A. (2014): Mainstream Aversion to Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics.

Abstract

There is a persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. Frank Hahn (1992) exemplified this attitude and provoked a number of reactions concerning the role and the reasons for methodological aversion. After offering a categorization of the main explanations for methodological aversion, the paper suggests an explanation that is based on the role of the physics scientific ideal. It argues that the strive to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. This can be reinforced by examining the writings of extremely influential mainstream economists such as Irwin Fisher and Milton Friedman. These works clearly imply that the hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. Given that the existing prescriptions for making economic methodology more attractive do not give much thought to this important aspect of mainstream economics, the paper also argues for a more systematic discussion of this issue.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Economic Methodology; History of Economic Thought; Economics and Physics.
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B0 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology

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.

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

Blaug, M. (2001). No History of Ideas, Please, We’re Economists, Journal of Economic Perspectives, No1, vol. 15:145-164.

Beed, C. and Kane, O. (1991). What is the Critique of the Mathematization of Economics?, Kyklos, 44: 581-612.

Boland, L. (1982]. The Foundations of Economic Method: A Popperian Perspective, London and New York: Routledge.

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

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

Caldwell, B.J. (1990). Does Methodology Matter? How should it be Practised?, Finnish Economic Papers, 3 (1): 46-76.

Caldwell, B. (1993). Economic Methodology: Rationale, Foundations, Prospects, in U. Maki, B. Gustafsson and C. Knudsen (eds) Rationality, Institutions and Economic Methodology, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 45- 60.

Caldwell, B.J. (2013). Of Positivism and the History of Economic Thought, Southern Economic Journal, 79(4): 753-767.

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

Davenport, H., Hamilton, W., Ely, R., Fisher, I. and Anderson, B. (1916). Tendencies in Economic Theory—Discussion”, The American Economic Review, vol.6, No.1: 62-169.

Davis, J. (2003). ‘Economic Methodology since Kuhn’, in W. Samuels, J. Biddle and J. Davis (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

Debreu, G. (1991). The Mathematization of Economic Theory, American Economic Review, 81(1): 1-7.

Dow, S. (2012). Foundations for New Economic Thinking: a Collection of Essays, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

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. (forthcoming). From Edgeworth to Econophysics: a Methodological Perspective, Journal of Economic Methodology.

Düppe, T. (2011). How Economic Methodology became a Separate Science, Journal of Economic Methodology, 18(2): 163-176.

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

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

Fisher, I. (1932). Statistics in the service of economics, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 28, no. 181.

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.

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.

Hands, D. Wade (1994). The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, in R. Backhouse (ed.) New Directions in Economic Methodology, London: Routledge, pp. 75–106.

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

Hands, D. Wade (2001b). Economic Methodology is Dead - Long Live Economic Methodology: Thirteen Theses on the new Economic Methodology, Journal of Economic Methodology, 8 (1): 49-63.

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

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

Hausman, D. M. (2001). A New Era for Economic Methodology, Journal of Economic Methodology, 8:1, 65-68.

Hicks, J. (1939). Value and Capital, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Hoover, K. (1995). Why does Methodology Matter for Economics?, Economic Journal, 105: 715-734.

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

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 (I):105-34.

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

Mäki, U. (2003). ‘The Methodology of Positive economics’ (1953) does not give us the Methodology of Positive Economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, 10(4): 495-505

Mäki, U. (2008). Method and Appraisal in Economics, 1976–2006, Journal of Economic Methodology, 15(4): 409–423.

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

McCloskey, D. (1986). The Rhetoric of Economics, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.

Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, London: Longmans, Green, Reader and Oyer.

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

Mirowski, P. (1991). ‘The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economic Analysis’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5:1, Winter, 145-157.

Mirowski, P. (1992). What were von Neumann and Morgenstern trying to Accomplish? History of Political Economy, 24:113-47.

Morgan, M. (2012). The World in the Model: How Economists Work and Think, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgenstern, Oskar (1976). Collaborating with von Neumann, Journal of Economic Literature 14 (3): 850-16.

Rashid, S. (1994). John von Neumann, Scientific Method and Empirical Economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, 1(2): 279-294.

Samuelson, P. (1948). Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Samuelson, P. (1992). My life Philosophy: Policy Credos and Working Ways” in Eminent Economists: Their Life Philosophies, ed. M. Szenberg, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.236-47.

Samuelson, P. (1998). How Foundations came to be, Journal of Economic Literature, 36:1375–1386.

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

Smith, A. (1980 ed.). Essays on Philosophical Subjects , edited by Wightman, W. P. D., Oxford: Clarendon Press.

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. (1989). Methodology doesn't Matter, but the History of Thought Might, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 91: 477-93.