Methodology...?! Why? Some Methodological Aspects of the Controversy between Mainstream Economics and Institutionalism

• Autorzy: Peter Galbács
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Mainstream economics has been running the gauntlet of adverse criticism for decades. These critiques claim as a message of central importance that mainstream economics has lost its relevance for understanding reality. By making a brief comparison between the methodological strategies of the main stream and institutional economics I suggest that the firm demarcation between the streams stems from the difference between their methodologies. Its peculiar interest directed mainstream economics to take a unique methodological path and consequently the adherents have not been able to be on the lookout for certain facets of socio-economic reality. However, the chosen path, the axiomatic-deductive strategy proved to be an appropriate method for identifying economic laws. This claim is justified even by some recent efforts of new institutional economics. In order to support the conversation between the schools I highlight some causes that currently make it impossible to start a rational discourse. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

Ekonomia; Homo oeconomicus; Koncepcja człowieka gospodarującego; Gospodarka; Neoinstytucjonalizm; Ekonomia instytucjonalna; Filozofia ekonomii

EN

Economics; Homo oeconomicus; Concept of Homo Oeconomicus; Economy; New institutionalism; Institutional economics; Philosophy of economics

• Czasopismo: Economics and Business Review
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 3 (17)
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 112-134

Twórcy

autor

Peter Galbács

• Budapest Business School

Bibliografia

• Atkinson, G. (1998). An evolutionary theory of the development of property and the state. In W. J. Samuels (Ed.), The founding of institutional economics (pp. 33-46). London - New York: Routledge.
• Backhouse, R. E. (1992a). The constructivist critique of economic methodology. Methodus, 4(1), 65-82.
• Backhouse, R. E. (1992b). Rejoinder - Why methodology matters. Methodus, 4(2), 58-62.
• Boland, L. A. (1992). The principles of economics. Some lies my teachers told me. London - New York: Routledge.
• Brousseau, E., & Glachant, J. M. (2008). New institutional economics. A guidebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bush, P. D. (1993). The methodology of institutional economics - A pragmatic instrumentalist perspective. In M. R. Tool (Ed.), Institutional economics - theory, method, policy (pp. 59-107). Boston - Dordrecht - London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Caldwell, B. (1990). Does methodology matter? How should it be practiced? Finnish Economic Papers, 3(1), 64-71.
• Carnap, R. (1939). Foundations of logic and mathematics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Chavance, B. (2009). Institutional economics. London - New York: Routledge.
• Coxeter, H. S. M. (1969). Introduction to geometry. New York: John Wiley, & Sons.
• De Vroey, M. (2016). A history of macroeconomics from keynes to lucas and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• De Vroey, M., & Pensieroso, L. (2016). The rise of a mainstream in economics. Discussion paper 2016-26. Leuven: Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales de l'Universite catholique de Louvain.
• Dewey, J. (1938). Logic. The theory of inquiry. The later works 1925-1953. Vol. 12: 1938. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Dewey, J. (1941). Propositions, warranted assertibility, and truth. In J. Dewey (1988), The later works, 1925-1953. Vol. 14: 1939-1941 (pp. 168-188). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
• Fine, A. (1984). The natural ontological attitude. In J. Leplin (Ed.), Scientific realism (pp. 83-107). Berkeley - Los Angeles - London: University of California Press.
• Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (1966), Essays in positive economics (pp. 3-43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Furubotn, E. G., & Richter, R. (2005). Institutions and economic theory. The contribution of the new institutional economics. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
• Glaser, B. G., & Straus, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory - strategy for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.
• Hacking, I. (1983). Experimentation and scientific realism. In J. Leplin (Ed.), Scientific realism (pp. 262-275). Berkeley - Los Angeles - London: University of California Press.
• Hahn, F. H. (1973). The winter of our discontent. Economica, 40(3), 322-330.
• Hausman, D. M. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.
• Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies in the logic of explanation. Philosophy of Science, 15(2), 135-175.
• Hodgson, G. M. (1998). The approach of institutional economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), 166-192.
• Hodgson, G. M. (2004). The evolution of institutional economics. London - New York: Routledge.
• Hoover, K. D. (1995). Why does methodology matter for economics? The Economic Journal, 105(3), 715-734.
• Jackson, W. A. (2009). Economics, culture and social theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Kawalec, P. (2012). Moderately pluralistic methodology. Roczniki Filozoficzne, 60(4), 233-247.
• Kawalec, P. (2017). Perspectival representation in DSGE models. Economics and Business Review, 3(17), no. 3.
• Keizer, P. (2007). The concept of institution in economics and sociology, a methodological exposition. Tjalling C. Koopmans Research Institute Discussion Paper Series No. 07-25. Utrecht: Utrecht School of Economics.
• Kornai, J. (1971). Anti-equilibrium. Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Lakatos, I. (1968). Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. London: Aristotelian Society.
• Leijonhufvud, A. (1994). Hicks, Keynes and Marshall. In H. Hagemann, & O. F. Hamouda (Eds.) (2005), The legacy of hicks. His contributions to economic analysis (pp. 143-158). London - New York: Routledge.
• Levinthal, D. (1988). A survey of agency models of organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 9(2), 153-185.
• Lucas, R. E. (1973). Some international evidence on output-inflation tradeoffs. The American Economic Review, 63(3), 326-334.
• Lucas, R. E. (1981). Studies in business-cycle theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Maki, U. (2009). The methodology of positive economics. Reflections on the milton friedman legacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Martin, P. Y., & Turner, B. A. (1986). Grounded theory and organizational research. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22(2), 141-157.
• McMullin, E. (1984). The goals of natural science. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 58(1), 37-64.
• Menard, C. (2001). Methodological issues in new institutional economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 8(1), 85-92.
• Menard, C., & Shirley, M. M. (2005). Handbook of new institutional economics. New York: Springer.
• Mirowski, P. (1986). Institutions as solution concepts in a game theory context. In P. Mirowski (Ed.), The reconstruction of economic theory (pp. 241-263). Boston - Dordrecht - Lancaster: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
• Mirowski, P. (1987). The philosophical bases of institutionalist economics. Journal of Economic Issues, 21(3), 1001-1038.
• Muth, J. F. (1961). Rational expectations and the theory of price movements. Econometrica, 29(3), 315-335.
• Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evoliutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA - London: Belknap Press.
• Nordhaus, W. D. (1975). The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies, 42(2), 169-190.
• Parada, J. J. (2001). Original institutional economics - A theory for the 21st century? Oeconomicus, 5(3), 46-60.
• Phelps, E. S. (2006). Biography of Edmund S. Phelps. In B. Holmlund (Ed.) (2015), Nobel lectures in economic sciences (2006-2010) (pp. 3-68). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
• Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge.
• Popper, K. (1962). Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. Now York - London: Basic Books.
• Putnam, H. (1975). What is "realism"? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 76(1), 177-194.
• Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. In T. McGrew, M. Alspector- Kelly, & F. Allhoff (Eds.) (2009), The philosophy of science. An historical anthology (pp. 412-423). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Richter, R. (1996). Bridging old and new institutional economics. Gustav Schmoller, the leader of the Younger German Historical School, seen with neoinstitutionalists' eyes. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 152(4), 567-592.
• Rutherford, M. (1994). Institutions in economics. The old and the new institutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schlick, M. (1934). The foundation of knowledge. In A. J. Ayer (Ed.) (1959), Logical positivism (pp. 209-227). New York: The Free Press.
• Shech, E. (2015). Scientific misrepresentation and guides to ontology. The need for representational code and contents. Synthese, 192(11), 3463-3485.
• Silvestri, P. (2017). Disputed (disciplinary) boundaries - philosophy, economics and value judgements. CESMEP Working Paper 1/2017. Torino: University of Torino, Department of Economics and Statistics.
• Spanos, A., & Mayo, D. G. (2015). Error statistical modeling and inference. Where methodology meets ontology. Synthese, 192(11), 3533-3555.
• Tool, M. R. (2003). Contributions to an institutionalist theory of price determination. In Hodgson, G. M. (Ed.), A modern reader in institutional and evolutionary economics (pp. 3-25). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Tsuru, S. (1993). Institutional economics revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4), 373-397.
• Veblen, T. (1901). Gustav Schmoller's economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 16(1), 69-93.
• Vromen, J. J. (1995). Economic evolution. An enquiry into the foundations of new institutional economics. London - New York: Routledge.
• Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of social sciences. Glencoe: The Free Press.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Weinberg, S. (2015). To explain the world. New York: Harper Collins.
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: The Free Press.
• Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics - taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595-613.
• Yefimov, V. (2004). On pragmatist institutional economics. MPRA Paper No. 49016. Munchen: MPRA.
• Yonay, Y. P. (1998). The struggle over the soul of economics. institutionalist and neoclassical economists in America between the wars. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.18559/ebr.2017.3.7