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":"37 1","pages":"40 - 45"},"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.2020.1868766
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":"24 1","pages":"3 - 13"},"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.2020.1868765
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":"3 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"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":"74 1","pages":"46 - 53"},"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.2020.1868781
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":"35 1","pages":"134 - 142"},"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}
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":"44 1","pages":"14 - 22"},"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.2020.1868779
Till Grüne-Yanoff, Philippe Verreault-Julien
ABSTRACT The recent literature on economic models has rejected the traditional requirement that their epistemic value necessary depended on them offering actual explanations of phenomena. Contributors to that literature have argued that many models do not aim at providing how-actually explanations, but instead how-possibly explanations. However, how to assess the epistemic value of HPEs remains an open question. We present a programmatic approach to answering it. We first introduce a conceptual framework that distinguishes how-actually explanations from how-possibly explanations and that further differentiates between epistemic and objective how-possibly explanations. Secondly, we show how that framework can be used for methodological appraisal as well as for understanding methodological controversies.
{"title":"How-possibly explanations in economics: anything goes?","authors":"Till Grüne-Yanoff, Philippe Verreault-Julien","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868779","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868779","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The recent literature on economic models has rejected the traditional requirement that their epistemic value necessary depended on them offering actual explanations of phenomena. Contributors to that literature have argued that many models do not aim at providing how-actually explanations, but instead how-possibly explanations. However, how to assess the epistemic value of HPEs remains an open question. We present a programmatic approach to answering it. We first introduce a conceptual framework that distinguishes how-actually explanations from how-possibly explanations and that further differentiates between epistemic and objective how-possibly explanations. Secondly, we show how that framework can be used for methodological appraisal as well as for understanding methodological controversies.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"262 1","pages":"114 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84646139","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.2020.1868780
Roberto Fumagalli
ABSTRACT In the recent well-being literature, various theory-free accounts of well-being have been proposed to ground informative evaluations of policies’ welfare implications without relying on any specific theories of well-being. In this paper, I provide a methodological assessment of theory-free accounts and argue that, despite these accounts, grounding informative evaluations of policies’ welfare implications frequently requires policy makers to rely on specific theories of well-being. Policy makers should ground their evaluations of policies’ welfare implications on explicit specifications of what theories of well-being they rely on and should openly acknowledge the theory-dependent character of their evaluations rather than aiming to provide theory-free welfare evaluations.
{"title":"Theories of well-being and well-being policy: a view from methodology","authors":"Roberto Fumagalli","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868780","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868780","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the recent well-being literature, various theory-free accounts of well-being have been proposed to ground informative evaluations of policies’ welfare implications without relying on any specific theories of well-being. In this paper, I provide a methodological assessment of theory-free accounts and argue that, despite these accounts, grounding informative evaluations of policies’ welfare implications frequently requires policy makers to rely on specific theories of well-being. Policy makers should ground their evaluations of policies’ welfare implications on explicit specifications of what theories of well-being they rely on and should openly acknowledge the theory-dependent character of their evaluations rather than aiming to provide theory-free welfare evaluations.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"28 1","pages":"124 - 133"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82158958","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.2020.1868778
J. Nelson
ABSTRACT Knowledge-making is a social activity. In this essay, I discuss how the economics discipline may be becoming a bit more cognizant of this fact, even though it goes against a long habit of imagining objectivity to be something attainable by lone (traditionally male) researchers. One promising recent development is the increasing attention being paid to community checks on empirical work in the form of meta-analysis, pre-registered studies, and replication. Another is the recent effort towards professional diversity and inclusion undertaken by leaders of the American Economic Association. To illustrate the importance of these two initiatives, I give an example of how community checks and inclusion of an historically marginalized perspective have exposed biases in previous – supposedly ‘rigorous’ – empirical behavioral economics research. Yet the acknowledgement that knowledge-making is social needs to expand further, into influencing not only how work, but what we work on, and what we work for.
{"title":"Economics and community knowledge-making","authors":"J. Nelson","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868778","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868778","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Knowledge-making is a social activity. In this essay, I discuss how the economics discipline may be becoming a bit more cognizant of this fact, even though it goes against a long habit of imagining objectivity to be something attainable by lone (traditionally male) researchers. One promising recent development is the increasing attention being paid to community checks on empirical work in the form of meta-analysis, pre-registered studies, and replication. Another is the recent effort towards professional diversity and inclusion undertaken by leaders of the American Economic Association. To illustrate the importance of these two initiatives, I give an example of how community checks and inclusion of an historically marginalized perspective have exposed biases in previous – supposedly ‘rigorous’ – empirical behavioral economics research. Yet the acknowledgement that knowledge-making is social needs to expand further, into influencing not only how work, but what we work on, and what we work for.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"6 1","pages":"107 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73766797","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.2020.1868776
M. Małecka
ABSTRACT This article reviews the relatively recent trend in economic methodology that consists in bringing insights from the debate in philosophy of science on values in science in order to analyse value-ladenness of economic research. The text claims that these insights from philosophy of science offer a slightly new approach to the topic of value judgments in economics that has been discussed in philosophy of economics for decades. It suggests that the perspective of philosophy of science reviewed in the article invites to rethinking analyses of feminist economists as important contributions to economic methodology.
{"title":"Values in economics: a recent revival with a twist","authors":"M. Małecka","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868776","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reviews the relatively recent trend in economic methodology that consists in bringing insights from the debate in philosophy of science on values in science in order to analyse value-ladenness of economic research. The text claims that these insights from philosophy of science offer a slightly new approach to the topic of value judgments in economics that has been discussed in philosophy of economics for decades. It suggests that the perspective of philosophy of science reviewed in the article invites to rethinking analyses of feminist economists as important contributions to economic methodology.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"80 1","pages":"88 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83852749","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：