Economic Crisis, Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics

Drakopoulos, Stavros A. (2016): Economic Crisis, Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics. Forthcoming in: Journal of Philosophical Economics (2016)

Abstract

The methodological foundations of mainstream economics have been cited as one of the main reasons for its failure to account for the economic crisis of 2008. In spite of this, the status of economic methodology has not been elevated. This is due to the persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. The anti-methodology stance has a long presence as exemplified in Frank Hahn’s (1992) work. After focusing on the debate originating after the publication of Hahn’s arguments, the paper offers a categorization of the main explanations for mainstream methodological aversion. Subsequently, it suggests an explanation based on the role of the physics scientific ideal, arguing that the endeavor to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. The relevant writings of the extremely influential mainstream economists Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, reinforce the assertion that the alleged hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. The paper also calls for a more systematic discussion of this issue, especially in the wake of the line of argument that links the recent failings of mainstream economics to its methodological basis

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Economic Methodology; History of Economic Thought; Economics and Physics; Economic Crisis
• 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 > B30 - General; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology > B40 - General

References

Akerlof, G. and Shiller, R. (2009), Animal Spirits, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

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.

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

Beker, V. (2016), ‘From the economic crisis to the crisis of economics’, in B. Moro and V. Beker (eds.) Modern Financial Crises, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

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, 15(1): 145-164.

Beed, C. and Kane, O. (1991), ‘What is the critique of the mathematization of economics?’, Kyklos, 44(4): 581-612.

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.

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.

Boyer, R. (2013), ‘The present crisis. A trump for a renewed political economy’, Review of Political Economy, 25(1): 1-38.

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.

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.J. (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.

Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G. and Rabin, M. (eds.) (2004), Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Clark, A., Frijters, P., and Shields, M. (2008), ‘Relative income, happiness and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles’, Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1): 95-124.

Claveau, F. (2009), ‘Interdependent preferences and policy stances in mainstream economics’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 2(1): 1-28.

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

Colander, D. (2010), ‘The economics profession, the financial crisis, and method’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 17(4): 419-27.

Colander, D., Holt, R. and Rosser B. (2004), ‘The changing face of mainstream economics’, Review of Political Economy, 16(4): 485–499.

Colander, D., Goldberg, M., Haas, A., Juselius, K., Kirman, A., Lux, T., and Sloth, B. (2009), ‘The financial crisis and the systemic failure of the economics profession’, Critical Review, 21(2–3): 249–267.

Davenport, H., Hamilton, W., Ely, R., Fisher, I. and Anderson, B. (1916), ‘Tendencies in economic theory—Discussion’, The American Economic Review, 6(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. (2015), ‘The physics scientific ideal in the works of Edgeworth and Fisher’ in G. Bitros and N. Kyriazis (eds.), Essays in Contemporary Economics: A Festschrift in Memory of Anastasios D. Karayiannis, New York: Springer, pp.31-43.

Drakopoulos, S.A. (2016), Comparisons in Economic Thought: Economic interdependency reconsidered, London: Routledge.

Drakopoulos, S.A. and Katselidis, I. (2015), ‘From Edgeworth to econophysics: a methodological perspective’, Journal of Economic Methodology. 22(1): 77-95.

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

Dzionek-Kozlowska, J. (2015), ‘Economics in times of crisis. In search of a new paradigm in economic sciences’, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, IX(1): 52-72.

Easterlin, R. (2004), The Reluctant Economist: Perspectives on Economics, Economic History and Demography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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. (2006), ‘The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism-Experimental evidence and new theories’, in S. Kolm and J. M. Ythier, (eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Oxford: North-Holland, pp.615-684.

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, 28(181): 1-13.

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

Frey, B. (2008), Happiness: A Revolution in Economics, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

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

Hahn, F. (1965), ‘Introduction’, in Hahn, F. and F.P.R. Brechling (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 M. Szenberg (ed.), Eminent Economists: their Life Philosophies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.16-166.

Hands, D. Wade (1993), ‘More Light on integrability, symmetry, and utility as potential energy in Mirowski’s critical history’, in In Neil de Marchi, (ed.), Nonnatural Social Science: Reflections on the Project of More Heat Than Light, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

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.

Hands, D. Wade (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.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.

Heinonen, V. (1993), ‘Economics as the physics of society—an interview with Philip Mirowski’, Review of Political Economy, 5(4): 508-531.

Heffetz, O. and Frank, R. (2011), ‘Preferences for status: Evidence and economic implications’, in J. Benhabib, A. Bisin, and M. Jackson (eds.), Handbook of Social Economics, vol.1A, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.69-91.

Hendry, D. (2000), Econometrics: Alchemy or Science?, Oxford: Blackwell.

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

Hodgson, G. (2008), ‘After 1929 economics changed: Will economists wake up in 2009?’, Real-world Economics Review, no. 48: 273–8.

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

Hoover, K. (2010), ‘Introduction: Methodological implications of the financial crisis’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 17(4): 397-98.

Hoover, K. (2013), ‘The role of hypothesis testing in the molding of econometric models’, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 6(2): 43-65.

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

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

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

Kragh, H. (2002), Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Krugman, P. (2009), ‘How did economists get it so wrong?’, New York Times Magazine, September 2.

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

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.

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

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.

Manski, C. (2004), ‘Measuring expectations’, Econometrica, 72(5): 1329-1376.

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

Mirowski, P. (1992b), ‘Do economists suffer from physics envy?’, Finnish Economic Papers, 5(1): 61-68.

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

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

Rabin, M. (2002), ‘A perspective on psychology and economics’, European Economic Review, 46(4-5): 657–685.

Rashid, S. (1994), ‘John von Neumann, scientific method and empirical economics’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 1(2): 279-294.

Samuelson, P. (1947), 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(3): 1375–1386.

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

Shiller, R. (2010), ‘How should the financial crisis change how we teach economics?’, The Journal of Economics Education, 41(4): 403-409.

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

Solow, R. (1986), ‘Economics: Is something missing?’, in Parker, W. (ed.), Economic History and the Modern Economist, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Solow, R. (2010), ‘Building a Science of Economics for the Real World’, Prepared Statement, House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ502/tesfatsion/Solow.StateOfMacro.CongressionalTestimony. July2010.pdf (date last accessed 18 May 2016)

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. (1874)[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.