Pub Date : 2021-02-18DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.2011374
Alexandre Truc
ABSTRACT Interdisciplinarity in behavioral economics (BE) has often been described as limited or decreasing since the 1980s. In this article, we investigate the interdisciplinary influences of behavioral economists using quantitative techniques. We find that following an intense period of interdisciplinary exchange among a handful of individuals, interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology has decreased in BE since the 1980s. However, this decreasing interdisciplinarity in BE has been compensated for by the rise of BE in the wider field of economics. While individual BE articles have become less intensely related to psychology, the growing number of BE articles in economics as a whole has intensified the overall interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology. Moreover, the decreasing interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology in BE has not resulted in a return to a self-sufficient economic approach. Instead, we observe a rise in the importance of management studies, as well as a variety of other disciplines in the social and natural sciences, as behavioral economists have diversified their interdisciplinary relationships since the 2000s. Finally, the level of interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology in behavioral economics remains higher than the average economics' article, making the specialty distinctively interdisciplinary.
{"title":"Interdisciplinary influences in behavioral economics: a bibliometric analysis of cross-disciplinary citations","authors":"Alexandre Truc","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.2011374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.2011374","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Interdisciplinarity in behavioral economics (BE) has often been described as limited or decreasing since the 1980s. In this article, we investigate the interdisciplinary influences of behavioral economists using quantitative techniques. We find that following an intense period of interdisciplinary exchange among a handful of individuals, interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology has decreased in BE since the 1980s. However, this decreasing interdisciplinarity in BE has been compensated for by the rise of BE in the wider field of economics. While individual BE articles have become less intensely related to psychology, the growing number of BE articles in economics as a whole has intensified the overall interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology. Moreover, the decreasing interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology in BE has not resulted in a return to a self-sufficient economic approach. Instead, we observe a rise in the importance of management studies, as well as a variety of other disciplines in the social and natural sciences, as behavioral economists have diversified their interdisciplinary relationships since the 2000s. Finally, the level of interdisciplinarity between economics and psychology in behavioral economics remains higher than the average economics' article, making the specialty distinctively interdisciplinary.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83025994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-17DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1887600
R. Sugden
2 February 2021 David Hume is generally acknowledged as one of the greatest philosophers of all time – the author of ground-breaking contributions to moral philosophy, political philosophy, philoso...
{"title":"The great economist David Hume","authors":"R. Sugden","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1887600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1887600","url":null,"abstract":"2 February 2021 David Hume is generally acknowledged as one of the greatest philosophers of all time – the author of ground-breaking contributions to moral philosophy, political philosophy, philoso...","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86603979","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1880614
Quentin Couix
ABSTRACT This paper investigates the methodology of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and his conception of economic models as analytical similes. His approach has received little attention from mathematical economists and economic methodologists. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to characterize his perspective and situate it in the broader spectrum of economic methodologies. It shows that Georgescu-Roegen criticized the lack of significance of certain economic models and attempted to give philosophical foundations to this criticism. He also provided a set of methodological principles that are illustrated by his practice of economic modeling. This perspective placed Georgescu-Roegen in opposition to the axiomatic approach that dominated postwar economics, and in line with economists such as Marshall, Wicksell, and Keynes, on the limited and subordinate role of mathematics in the discipline. Overall, the paper shows that Georgescu-Roegen's methodological contribution is still relevant to contemporary debates on the status of economic models.
{"title":"Models as ‘analytical similes’: on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to economic methodology","authors":"Quentin Couix","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1880614","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1880614","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper investigates the methodology of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and his conception of economic models as analytical similes. His approach has received little attention from mathematical economists and economic methodologists. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to characterize his perspective and situate it in the broader spectrum of economic methodologies. It shows that Georgescu-Roegen criticized the lack of significance of certain economic models and attempted to give philosophical foundations to this criticism. He also provided a set of methodological principles that are illustrated by his practice of economic modeling. This perspective placed Georgescu-Roegen in opposition to the axiomatic approach that dominated postwar economics, and in line with economists such as Marshall, Wicksell, and Keynes, on the limited and subordinate role of mathematics in the discipline. Overall, the paper shows that Georgescu-Roegen's methodological contribution is still relevant to contemporary debates on the status of economic models.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88350791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868770
F. Guala
ABSTRACT Although the philosophy of economics has thrived during periods of crisis, it is by no means clear that it will continue to do so. Have philosophers of economics wasted important opportunities during the past decade? If so, why? Is there anything to learn from this experience? What should we do now that another crisis is in the making?
{"title":"On letting serious crises go to waste","authors":"F. Guala","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868770","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Although the philosophy of economics has thrived during periods of crisis, it is by no means clear that it will continue to do so. Have philosophers of economics wasted important opportunities during the past decade? If so, why? Is there anything to learn from this experience? What should we do now that another crisis is in the making?","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73678651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868769
D. Ross
ABSTRACT I appraise some areas of recent achievement in economic methodology by identifying four topics on which there will likely be heavy exogenously generated demand for methodological innovation over coming years, and asking what foundations have been set for this work. The topics in question are economists’ role in policy formation, macroeconomic management, causal and structural modeling of economic processes, and welfare with non-standard and dynamic utility.
{"title":"Economic methodology in 2020: looking forward, looking back","authors":"D. Ross","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868769","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868769","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I appraise some areas of recent achievement in economic methodology by identifying four topics on which there will likely be heavy exogenously generated demand for methodological innovation over coming years, and asking what foundations have been set for this work. The topics in question are economists’ role in policy formation, macroeconomic management, causal and structural modeling of economic processes, and welfare with non-standard and dynamic utility.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77124986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178x.2020.1868765
John B. Davis, D. W. Hands
{"title":"Introduction: economic methodology and philosophy of economics twenty years since the Millennium","authors":"John B. Davis, D. W. Hands","doi":"10.1080/1350178x.2020.1868765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178x.2020.1868765","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80747183","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868771
Sheila Dow
ABSTRACT This contribution considers how economic methodology and the philosophy of economics have evolved in the light of real experience in the economy. Philosophical and methodological discourse about economics has extended to the student movement and to the public arena as a result of the various recent crises facing the economy and society, and of economists’ response. This discourse has drawn particularly on heterodox philosophical/methodological analysis, which has continued to develop both within and beyond the specialist literature. There has been an increasing focus on issues surrounding pluralism and the orthodoxy/heterodoxy distinction. Following a discussion of these developments a parallel is drawn between evolution of the fields of methodology/philosophy of economics on the one hand and the history of economic thought on the other.
{"title":"Economic methodology, the philosophy of economics and the economy: another turn?","authors":"Sheila Dow","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868771","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This contribution considers how economic methodology and the philosophy of economics have evolved in the light of real experience in the economy. Philosophical and methodological discourse about economics has extended to the student movement and to the public arena as a result of the various recent crises facing the economy and society, and of economists’ response. This discourse has drawn particularly on heterodox philosophical/methodological analysis, which has continued to develop both within and beyond the specialist literature. There has been an increasing focus on issues surrounding pluralism and the orthodoxy/heterodoxy distinction. Following a discussion of these developments a parallel is drawn between evolution of the fields of methodology/philosophy of economics on the one hand and the history of economic thought on the other.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84792716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868766
U. Mäki
ABSTRACT The paper sketches a story about how and why the field of economic methodology / philosophy of economics emerged (as a further step in specialization), and how it has evolved intellectually and institutionally. It considers the field as an institutionalized form of higher-order reflection on the discipline of economics and suggests that such reflection, also in its pre-field form, has recurring triggering conditions (e.g. alleged failures in economics, fundamental controversy, launch of new research style) and functions (e.g. criticism, defense, programmatic statement). It lists topics of inquiry that derive from the concerns economists and others have about the discipline (as a modelling discipline and a policy science). It offers consolation to those who worry about effectively addressing academic economists as the primary audience, suggesting there are other valuable audiences (such as philosophers of science and policy makers). It gives examples of how critical conversation will ensure progress in the field.
{"title":"The field: tasks, pasts, futures","authors":"U. Mäki","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868766","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper sketches a story about how and why the field of economic methodology / philosophy of economics emerged (as a further step in specialization), and how it has evolved intellectually and institutionally. It considers the field as an institutionalized form of higher-order reflection on the discipline of economics and suggests that such reflection, also in its pre-field form, has recurring triggering conditions (e.g. alleged failures in economics, fundamental controversy, launch of new research style) and functions (e.g. criticism, defense, programmatic statement). It lists topics of inquiry that derive from the concerns economists and others have about the discipline (as a modelling discipline and a policy science). It offers consolation to those who worry about effectively addressing academic economists as the primary audience, suggesting there are other valuable audiences (such as philosophers of science and policy makers). It gives examples of how critical conversation will ensure progress in the field.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79276477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868767
D. Hausman
ABSTRACT This essay offers a history of the development of philosophy of economics from the 1830s until today, with a personal perspective on the developments of the last four decades. It argues that changes in methodology have largely followed changes in practice, although practice and preaching are now in greater accord than earlier. The essay looks forward to fruitful collaboration particularly with respect to causal inference and normative appraisal.
{"title":"Philosophy of economics: past and future","authors":"D. Hausman","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868767","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay offers a history of the development of philosophy of economics from the 1830s until today, with a personal perspective on the developments of the last four decades. It argues that changes in methodology have largely followed changes in practice, although practice and preaching are now in greater accord than earlier. The essay looks forward to fruitful collaboration particularly with respect to causal inference and normative appraisal.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86886914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868781
Michiru Nagatsu
ABSTRACT I envision new directions in the methodology of experimental games in the field of developmental, environmental and resource economics. Although there have been extensive discussions on experimental practices in recent years, following Guala's [(2005). The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press] pioneering work, the methodology has narrowly focused on issues related to the internal and external validity of experimental results, in particular the extrapolation of results for policy. I introduce co-production as a popular perspective in the recent methodological discussion on sustainability science, and then I illustrate how it works in the familiar context of game-theoretic studies of common pool resource management. I then distinguish various ways in which methodologists could engage in the normative appraisal of co-production using economics, ranging from conservative to radical approaches.
{"title":"Co-production and economics: insights from the constructive use of experimental games in adaptive resource management","authors":"Michiru Nagatsu","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868781","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I envision new directions in the methodology of experimental games in the field of developmental, environmental and resource economics. Although there have been extensive discussions on experimental practices in recent years, following Guala's [(2005). The methodology of experimental economics. Cambridge University Press] pioneering work, the methodology has narrowly focused on issues related to the internal and external validity of experimental results, in particular the extrapolation of results for policy. I introduce co-production as a popular perspective in the recent methodological discussion on sustainability science, and then I illustrate how it works in the familiar context of game-theoretic studies of common pool resource management. I then distinguish various ways in which methodologists could engage in the normative appraisal of co-production using economics, ranging from conservative to radical approaches.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84686868","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：