Rejoinder to Methodology...?! Why? Some Methodological Aspects of the Controversy between Mainstream Economics and Institutionalism by Peter Galbács

• Autorzy: Beata Stępień
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This question, and the rejoinder itself, were inspired by the article of Peter Galbacs, in which he claims that the reason mainstream and heterodox economics cannot converge their perspectives is the methodology we employ. But do the distant methodological standpoints preclude convergence? The answer to these questions depends, for me, on a clarification of the following areas in this long - going, active, but still unresolved dispute: 1. the way we define, treat and use the methodology in our reasoning, 2. the way we justify the choice of assumptions serving as the methodological restraint, 3. the way we understand and operationalize rationality. (fragment of text)

Słowa kluczowe

PL

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

EN

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

• Czasopismo: Economics and Business Review
• Rocznik: 2017
• Tom: 3 (17)
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 155-158

Twórcy

autor

Beata Stępień

• Poznań University of Economics and Business, Poland

Bibliografia

• Aumann, R. (2005). http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/laureates/ 2005/aumann-lecture.html.
• Boehm, S. (1982). The ambiguous notion of subjectivism: Comment on Lachmann. In I. Kirzner (Ed.), Method, process, and Austrian economics. Essays in honor of Ludwig von Mises (pp. 41-52). Lexington, MA and Toronto: Lexington Books.
• Colander, D., Holt, R., Barkley Rosser, Jr., J. (2007-2008). Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2), 303-312.
• Colander, D. C. (2005). The crisis in economics: The Post-autistic economics movement: The first 600 days - review article, Journal of Economic Methodology, 12 (2), 336-342.
• Colander, D., Holt, R., & Rosser, B. (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy, 16(4), 485-499.
• Davis, J. B. (2007). The turn in economics and the turn in economic methodology, Journal of Economic Methodology, 14 (3), 275-290.
• Davis, J. B. (2012). Samuels on methodological pluralism in economics, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 30). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. http://doi.org/10.1108/S0743-4154(2012)000030A010.
• Drakopoulos, S. A. (2016). Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics, Vol. 1, June, 28-58.
• Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), 483-505.
• Mirowski, P. (1992). Do economists suffer from physics envy? Finnish Economic Papers, 5(1), 61-68.
• Robbins, L. (1938), Live and dead issues in the methodology of economics. Economica, August, 5, 342-352.
• Samuels, W. J. (1998). Methodological pluralism, In J. Davis, D. W. Hands, & U. Maki (Eds.), Handbook of economic methodology, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
• Sen, A. (2012). quote at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev/.
• Simon, H, (1979). Rational decision-making in business organizations, American Economic Review, 69(4).
• Whitehead, A. N. (1958). Modes of thought. New York, NY: Capricorn.
• Vanberg, V. J., (2004). Austrian economics, evolutionary psychology, and methodological dualism: subjectivism reconsidered. Advances in Austrian Economics, 7, 155-199.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.18559/ebr.2017.3.13