Pub Date : 2023-03-24DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2023.2192222
Guilhem Lecouteux
ABSTRACT A common narrative among some behavioural economists and policy makers is that experimental psychology highlights that individuals are more like Homer Simpson than the Mr Spock imagined by neoclassical economics, and that this justifies policies aiming to ‘correct’ individual behaviours. This narrative is central to nudging policies and suggests that a better understanding of individual cognition will lead to better policy prescriptions. I argue that this Homer economicus narrative is methodologically flawed, and that its emphasis on cognition advances a distorted view of public policies consisting in fixing malfunctioning individuals, while ignoring the characteristics of the socio-economic environment that influence individuals’ behaviours.
{"title":"The Homer economicus narrative: from cognitive psychology to individual public policies","authors":"Guilhem Lecouteux","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2023.2192222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2023.2192222","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A common narrative among some behavioural economists and policy makers is that experimental psychology highlights that individuals are more like Homer Simpson than the Mr Spock imagined by neoclassical economics, and that this justifies policies aiming to ‘correct’ individual behaviours. This narrative is central to nudging policies and suggests that a better understanding of individual cognition will lead to better policy prescriptions. I argue that this Homer economicus narrative is methodologically flawed, and that its emphasis on cognition advances a distorted view of public policies consisting in fixing malfunctioning individuals, while ignoring the characteristics of the socio-economic environment that influence individuals’ behaviours.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88418134","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 : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1080/1350178x.2023.2181374
John B. Davis
{"title":"Objectivity in economics and the problem of the individual","authors":"John B. Davis","doi":"10.1080/1350178x.2023.2181374","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178x.2023.2181374","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77385365","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 : 2023-02-20DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2023.2180153
Alexandre Truc, Dorian Jullien
ABSTRACT This paper studies the controversy on Fehr and Schmidt's model of inequity aversion. It borrows insights from disciplines such as philosophy and the sociology of science that have specialized in studying scientific controversies. Our goal is to contribute to the historical and methodological literature on behavioral economics, which happens to have neglected behavioral economists' research on social preferences. Our analysis of the controversy reveals some new insights about the relation of behavioral economics with other sub-fields in economics, as well as with other disciplines.
{"title":"A controversy about modeling practices: the case of inequity aversion","authors":"Alexandre Truc, Dorian Jullien","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2023.2180153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2023.2180153","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper studies the controversy on Fehr and Schmidt's model of inequity aversion. It borrows insights from disciplines such as philosophy and the sociology of science that have specialized in studying scientific controversies. Our goal is to contribute to the historical and methodological literature on behavioral economics, which happens to have neglected behavioral economists' research on social preferences. Our analysis of the controversy reveals some new insights about the relation of behavioral economics with other sub-fields in economics, as well as with other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76989961","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 : 2023-02-01DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2023.2170858
Michiru Nagatsu
What is left to be said about David Graeber and David Wengrow’s book, The Dawn of Everything (hereafter, TDoE)? Reviews of it have appeared in a great many mass-media publications. Although many trend to the hyperbolic (e.g., “What If Everything You Learned about Human History Is Wrong?” New York Times, October 31, 2021), the amount of conversation the book has generated within and beyond the discipline is impressive. This review is written by an archaeologist and for archaeologists, and it is informed by a semester’s worth of conversations among faculty members and graduate students in archaeology and history at the University of Georgia. TDoE is a sweeping ideological and intellectual project that has both swagger and heft. With nearly 700 pages including notes and references, its goal is nothing less than a fundamental transformation of how we think about the human past. The book was written to be public facing. It will be best enjoyed by archaeologists who can avoid getting caught up in the dog-whistle critiques that inevitably emerge when the authors play fast and loose with archaeological data. TDoE will sit comfortably alongside other public-facing grand narratives: Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997); Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens (2011); James Scott’s Against the Grain (2017); and Graeber’s own Debt (2011). However, it will also find company among more radical scholarship that seeks to deconstruct teleological narratives about social evolution and inequality. The late David Graeber was an iconic activist, thought leader, and prolific intellectual, who moved seamlessly between public and academic realms. It is sad that Graeber did not live to see this book’s reception. David Wengrow is an archaeologist with a strong background in African and Middle Eastern archaeology, and a publication catalog that reflects a history of grappling with concepts central to the project (i.e., origins, civilization). Wengrow’s foreword explains that this book was the outcome of 10 years of dialogue between him and Graeber and was intended to be the first of multiple creative collaborations. The first chapter introduces the central premise: narratives about human history that forefront inequality and a step-wise history of human evolution are dangerously wrong. They have made seem natural a modern global political system in which inequality is understood as the natural outcome of social evolution. Where did we go wrong? And how did we get stuck there? The second chapter takes a deep dive into a core element of their thesis: the “Indigenous critique” of European society. The proponent of the Indigenous critique is Kandiaronk, a Huron-Wendat statesman whose purported views on religion, law, politics, personal freedom, and the refusal of arbitrary power formed the basis of Lahontan’s Dialogues and in turn profoundly influenced Enlightenment thinking in France and beyond. Although Kandiaronk was certainly a real person, there is a question about whether t
关于大卫·格雷伯和大卫·温格罗的《万物的黎明》(以下简称《黎明》)，我们还能说些什么呢?它的评论出现在许多大众媒体出版物上。尽管许多人倾向于夸张(例如，“如果你学到的关于人类历史的一切都是错的呢?”)《纽约时报》，2021年10月31日)，这本书在学科内外引发的讨论数量令人印象深刻。这篇评论是由一位考古学家撰写的，也是为考古学家撰写的，它是由乔治亚大学考古学和历史专业的教师和研究生之间一学期的谈话所提供的信息。TDoE是一个全面的意识形态和智力项目，既招摇又有分量。这本书有近700页，包括注释和参考文献，它的目标不亚于从根本上改变我们对人类过去的看法。这本书是为面向公众写的。考古学家最喜欢这本书，因为他们可以避免被作者对考古数据草率处理时不可避免地出现的狗哨批评所困扰。《绝地绝地》将与其他面向公众的宏大叙事作品并举:贾里德·戴蒙德的《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》(1997);尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利的《智人》(2011);詹姆斯·斯科特的《逆水行舟》(2017);以及格雷伯自己的债务(2011)。然而，它也会在寻求解构关于社会进化和不平等的目的论叙事的更激进的学术中找到同伴。已故的大卫·格雷伯是一位标志性的活动家、思想领袖和多产的知识分子，他在公共领域和学术领域之间游移自如。令人遗憾的是，格雷伯没能活着看到这本书受到的欢迎。大卫·温格罗是一位在非洲和中东考古方面有着深厚背景的考古学家，他的出版目录反映了他与该项目核心概念(即起源、文明)斗争的历史。温格罗的前言解释说，这本书是他和格雷伯10年对话的结果，并打算成为多次创造性合作的第一次。第一章介绍了本书的中心前提:把不平等和人类进化的阶梯式历史放在首位的人类历史叙述是危险的错误。它们使一种现代全球政治体系看起来很自然，在这种体系中，不平等被理解为社会进化的自然结果。我们哪里出错了?我们是怎么被困在那里的?第二章深入探讨了他们论文的核心要素:欧洲社会的“本土批判”。土著批判的支持者是kandionk，一位休伦-温达特政治家，他对宗教、法律、政治、个人自由和拒绝专断权力的观点构成了拉洪坦对话集的基础，反过来深刻影响了法国和其他地方的启蒙思想。虽然坎迪亚龙克确实是一个真实的人，但有一个问题是，《对话》是否代表了他的真实想法，还是他被塑造成一个典型的“高贵的野蛮人”;格雷伯和温格罗坚定地站在前者一边。对于加拿大的休伦-温达特民族来说，温达特哲学家和政治领袖以这种方式获得提升，代表了他们对自己的一个人的渴望(Louis Lesage, personal communication 2022)。第3-10章带领读者踏上一段穿越世界史前史的旅程，从冰河时代到农业、城市和前现代国家的起源。格雷伯和温格罗认为，不平等的根源在于旧石器时代，一旦这种权力和/或财富的不平衡表现出来，人类就会发展出灵活而自觉的政治策略来颠覆它们。在探索在采集者，农民，城市中的人类集体的层次到层次的动态
{"title":"The dawn of everything: a new history of humanity","authors":"Michiru Nagatsu","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2023.2170858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2023.2170858","url":null,"abstract":"What is left to be said about David Graeber and David Wengrow’s book, The Dawn of Everything (hereafter, TDoE)? Reviews of it have appeared in a great many mass-media publications. Although many trend to the hyperbolic (e.g., “What If Everything You Learned about Human History Is Wrong?” New York Times, October 31, 2021), the amount of conversation the book has generated within and beyond the discipline is impressive. This review is written by an archaeologist and for archaeologists, and it is informed by a semester’s worth of conversations among faculty members and graduate students in archaeology and history at the University of Georgia. TDoE is a sweeping ideological and intellectual project that has both swagger and heft. With nearly 700 pages including notes and references, its goal is nothing less than a fundamental transformation of how we think about the human past. The book was written to be public facing. It will be best enjoyed by archaeologists who can avoid getting caught up in the dog-whistle critiques that inevitably emerge when the authors play fast and loose with archaeological data. TDoE will sit comfortably alongside other public-facing grand narratives: Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997); Yuval Noah Harari’s Sapiens (2011); James Scott’s Against the Grain (2017); and Graeber’s own Debt (2011). However, it will also find company among more radical scholarship that seeks to deconstruct teleological narratives about social evolution and inequality. The late David Graeber was an iconic activist, thought leader, and prolific intellectual, who moved seamlessly between public and academic realms. It is sad that Graeber did not live to see this book’s reception. David Wengrow is an archaeologist with a strong background in African and Middle Eastern archaeology, and a publication catalog that reflects a history of grappling with concepts central to the project (i.e., origins, civilization). Wengrow’s foreword explains that this book was the outcome of 10 years of dialogue between him and Graeber and was intended to be the first of multiple creative collaborations. The first chapter introduces the central premise: narratives about human history that forefront inequality and a step-wise history of human evolution are dangerously wrong. They have made seem natural a modern global political system in which inequality is understood as the natural outcome of social evolution. Where did we go wrong? And how did we get stuck there? The second chapter takes a deep dive into a core element of their thesis: the “Indigenous critique” of European society. The proponent of the Indigenous critique is Kandiaronk, a Huron-Wendat statesman whose purported views on religion, law, politics, personal freedom, and the refusal of arbitrary power formed the basis of Lahontan’s Dialogues and in turn profoundly influenced Enlightenment thinking in France and beyond. Although Kandiaronk was certainly a real person, there is a question about whether t","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84833680","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2023.2172447
Alexander Mebius
ABSTRACT Financial modelling is an essential tool for studying the possibility of financial transactions. This paper argues that financial models are conventional tools widely used in formulating and establishing possibility claims about a prospective investment transaction, from a set of governing possibility assumptions. What is distinctive about financial models is that they articulate how a transaction possibly could occur in a non-actual investment scenario given a limited base of possibility conditions assumed in the model. For this reason, it is argued that the epistemic contribution of financial models is that of enabling the model users to envision exactly how a prospective investment could be achieved in various ways through a detailed understanding of the available transaction mechanisms. Thus, financial models provide information about the possibility of an investment scenario by showing how a specific transaction mechanism could result from a small set of initial possibility conditions assumed in the model.
{"title":"On the epistemic contribution of financial models","authors":"Alexander Mebius","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2023.2172447","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2023.2172447","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Financial modelling is an essential tool for studying the possibility of financial transactions. This paper argues that financial models are conventional tools widely used in formulating and establishing possibility claims about a prospective investment transaction, from a set of governing possibility assumptions. What is distinctive about financial models is that they articulate how a transaction possibly could occur in a non-actual investment scenario given a limited base of possibility conditions assumed in the model. For this reason, it is argued that the epistemic contribution of financial models is that of enabling the model users to envision exactly how a prospective investment could be achieved in various ways through a detailed understanding of the available transaction mechanisms. Thus, financial models provide information about the possibility of an investment scenario by showing how a specific transaction mechanism could result from a small set of initial possibility conditions assumed in the model.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87192772","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2023.2170859
J. Pearl
ABSTRACT This note aims to assist applied econometricians in understanding the tools of causal inference and to extend those discussed in Nick Huntington-Klein's review of The Book of Why.
本文旨在帮助应用计量经济学家理解因果推理的工具，并扩展尼克·亨廷顿-克莱因(Nick Huntington-Klein)对《为什么》(the Book of Why)的评论中讨论的工具。
{"title":"Comments on Nick Huntington–Klein's review ‘Pearl before economists: The Book of Why and empirical economics’","authors":"J. Pearl","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2023.2170859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2023.2170859","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This note aims to assist applied econometricians in understanding the tools of causal inference and to extend those discussed in Nick Huntington-Klein's review of The Book of Why.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80703164","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 : 2023-01-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2023.2167228
Shiri Cohen Kaminitz
ABSTRACT What is the significance of GDP per capita to a society? What does it represent conceptually? These questions have been addressed in past decades, engendering extensive explorations of the limitations of the indicator, yet answers have proved problematic or partial. The paper presents the main conclusions so far drawn and builds upon them to present a new reading of the significance of GDP per capita. At the heart of this reading is the view that, while GDP per capita is not indicative of the welfare of individuals, it is indicative of an irreducible ‘group well-being.’ This view, however, requires one to relinquish the belief that only individuals can be ‘well.’ It turns out that the allegedly orthodox view, which sees GDP as a human-centered indicator, requires an unorthodox philosophical standpoint, one that accepts an irreducible group well-being. The paper presents this alternative interpretation and addresses its upsides and limitations.
{"title":"The significance of GDP: a new take on a century-old question","authors":"Shiri Cohen Kaminitz","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2023.2167228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2023.2167228","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT What is the significance of GDP per capita to a society? What does it represent conceptually? These questions have been addressed in past decades, engendering extensive explorations of the limitations of the indicator, yet answers have proved problematic or partial. The paper presents the main conclusions so far drawn and builds upon them to present a new reading of the significance of GDP per capita. At the heart of this reading is the view that, while GDP per capita is not indicative of the welfare of individuals, it is indicative of an irreducible ‘group well-being.’ This view, however, requires one to relinquish the belief that only individuals can be ‘well.’ It turns out that the allegedly orthodox view, which sees GDP as a human-centered indicator, requires an unorthodox philosophical standpoint, one that accepts an irreducible group well-being. The paper presents this alternative interpretation and addresses its upsides and limitations.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84288258","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 : 2022-12-28DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2160003
P. Silvestri, Benoît Walraevens
ABSTRACT Among the various attempts to re-humanize economics, the ‘humanomics’ proposed by Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson stands out. We contribute to the “humanomics project” by mapping its territory – core, periphery and frontiers – with an eye, also, on future explorations. First, we critically study the core: Smith and Wilson’s interpretation and experimental application of Adam Smith’s ideas on beneficence and injustice. Using the distinction between reciprocal cooperation and reciprocal kindness, we provide a different interpretation of Smith which helps to better understand the difference between exchange and trust, based on mutual advantage, and (reciprocal) beneficence proper. Secondly, we turn to the periphery, going beyond the ‘dichotomous representation of the human personality’ – personal-social/impersonal-economic – and showing other possible worlds: nuances of humans equally worthy of study, such as the personal-economic and the impersonal-social. Thirdly, we argue that the humanomics project should keep its frontiers as open as possible to human diversities and frailties.
{"title":"The wealth of humans: core, periphery and frontiers of humanomics","authors":"P. Silvestri, Benoît Walraevens","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2160003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2160003","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Among the various attempts to re-humanize economics, the ‘humanomics’ proposed by Vernon Smith and Bart Wilson stands out. We contribute to the “humanomics project” by mapping its territory – core, periphery and frontiers – with an eye, also, on future explorations. First, we critically study the core: Smith and Wilson’s interpretation and experimental application of Adam Smith’s ideas on beneficence and injustice. Using the distinction between reciprocal cooperation and reciprocal kindness, we provide a different interpretation of Smith which helps to better understand the difference between exchange and trust, based on mutual advantage, and (reciprocal) beneficence proper. Secondly, we turn to the periphery, going beyond the ‘dichotomous representation of the human personality’ – personal-social/impersonal-economic – and showing other possible worlds: nuances of humans equally worthy of study, such as the personal-economic and the impersonal-social. Thirdly, we argue that the humanomics project should keep its frontiers as open as possible to human diversities and frailties.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74147892","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 : 2022-11-21DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2022.2147980
Sergios Tzotzes, D. Milonakis
ABSTRACT Considering Kuhn’s emphasis on the community structure of science, this paper focuses on the scientific community to inquire whether the recent global financial crisis ushered paradigm change in economics. To appraise the nature and the extent of post-crisis change, we examine the methodological constitution of the dominant paradigm identified as New Consensus Macroeconomics, methodological commitments binding paradigm and scientific community, and assess the practice of the community, particularly the treatment of anomalies. Subsequently, an attempt is made to illuminate whether/how sociological and institutional parameters in the community structure of the discipline bear upon prospects of change. Empirically, this research investigates, categorizes and evaluates post-crisis responses and perceptions of the scientific community. The overarching aim is to determine whether economics responded to a major anomaly with critical self-reflection on the adequacy of its methodological toolbox, leading to theory change, and to shed light on institutional aspects influence this process.
{"title":"Scientific communities, recent crisis and change in economics: a Kuhnian perspective","authors":"Sergios Tzotzes, D. Milonakis","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2022.2147980","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2147980","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Considering Kuhn’s emphasis on the community structure of science, this paper focuses on the scientific community to inquire whether the recent global financial crisis ushered paradigm change in economics. To appraise the nature and the extent of post-crisis change, we examine the methodological constitution of the dominant paradigm identified as New Consensus Macroeconomics, methodological commitments binding paradigm and scientific community, and assess the practice of the community, particularly the treatment of anomalies. Subsequently, an attempt is made to illuminate whether/how sociological and institutional parameters in the community structure of the discipline bear upon prospects of change. Empirically, this research investigates, categorizes and evaluates post-crisis responses and perceptions of the scientific community. The overarching aim is to determine whether economics responded to a major anomaly with critical self-reflection on the adequacy of its methodological toolbox, leading to theory change, and to shed light on institutional aspects influence this process.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86564034","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 : 2022-11-14DOI: 10.1080/1350178x.2022.2142270
I. Gilboa, Andrew Postlewaite, L. Samuelson, D. Schmeidler
The interpretation of economic theories varies along several dimensions. First, theories can describe reality, illustrate a recommended state of affairs, or analyze the logical consistency of a possible world. Second, theories can be used for prediction or for explanation. Third, theories can relate to reality in a rule-based or case-based manner. Fourth, theories can be statements about economic reality or about the act of economic reasoning itself. Fifth, theories can offer predictions or merely critique reasoning. We argue that theories are often open to multiple interpretations which can shift depending on the context in which the theory is applied, the surrounding economic literature, and the argument made by the interpreter
{"title":"Economic theories and their Dueling interpretations","authors":"I. Gilboa, Andrew Postlewaite, L. Samuelson, D. Schmeidler","doi":"10.1080/1350178x.2022.2142270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178x.2022.2142270","url":null,"abstract":"The interpretation of economic theories varies along several dimensions. First, theories can describe reality, illustrate a recommended state of affairs, or analyze the logical consistency of a possible world. Second, theories can be used for prediction or for explanation. Third, theories can relate to reality in a rule-based or case-based manner. Fourth, theories can be statements about economic reality or about the act of economic reasoning itself. Fifth, theories can offer predictions or merely critique reasoning. We argue that theories are often open to multiple interpretations which can shift depending on the context in which the theory is applied, the surrounding economic literature, and the argument made by the interpreter","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72862235","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：