Pub Date : 2021-06-02DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598
Nikola Frollová, M. Vranka, P. Houdek
ABSTRACT We conducted focus groups with participants of a laboratory experiment on cheating with the aim to describe and structure participants’ lived experience with the experiment and to compare their perceptions with experimenters’ expectations. Our results suggest that participants often perceive both control and experimental conditions differently than intended by an experimenter. For example, the participants’ decisions may be affected by feeling that they have to make a choice and do not have the opportunity to leave the experimental situation; by not believing in the anonymity of the experiment, by misunderstanding of random processes, or by other considerations other than the ethicality, for example by how entertaining or effortful is the chosen course of action. Our results underscore how difficult it is to achieve internal validity even in laboratory research. We conclude that the laboratory research of dishonesty would be improved by taking into account different perceived frames of experimental designs.
{"title":"A qualitative study of perception of a dishonesty experiment","authors":"Nikola Frollová, M. Vranka, P. Houdek","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1936598","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We conducted focus groups with participants of a laboratory experiment on cheating with the aim to describe and structure participants’ lived experience with the experiment and to compare their perceptions with experimenters’ expectations. Our results suggest that participants often perceive both control and experimental conditions differently than intended by an experimenter. For example, the participants’ decisions may be affected by feeling that they have to make a choice and do not have the opportunity to leave the experimental situation; by not believing in the anonymity of the experiment, by misunderstanding of random processes, or by other considerations other than the ethicality, for example by how entertaining or effortful is the chosen course of action. Our results underscore how difficult it is to achieve internal validity even in laboratory research. We conclude that the laboratory research of dishonesty would be improved by taking into account different perceived frames of experimental designs.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"10 1","pages":"274 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87948778","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 : 2021-05-12DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1926528
DA Megger
ABSTRACT In this paper I analyse the problem of free will and determinism as it pertains to the Austrian School of Economics. I demonstrate that despite the fact they subscribe to the concept of causality, contemporary Austrians generally reject determinism at the level of human action, thus remaining proponents of what is known as metaphysical libertarianism. However, as I then show, Ludwig von Mises, the founding father of the modern Austrian School, was probably a determinist. My purpose is to test which metaphysical foundations best fit Austrian theory. I come to the conclusion that the economic theory of the Austrian School is consistent both with determinism (compatibilism) and metaphysical libertarianism (incompatibilism). In light of this, the determinist world-view widely embraced by scientists does not threaten the economic theory propounded by the Austrian School.
{"title":"Determinism, free will, and the Austrian School of Economics","authors":"DA Megger","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1926528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1926528","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper I analyse the problem of free will and determinism as it pertains to the Austrian School of Economics. I demonstrate that despite the fact they subscribe to the concept of causality, contemporary Austrians generally reject determinism at the level of human action, thus remaining proponents of what is known as metaphysical libertarianism. However, as I then show, Ludwig von Mises, the founding father of the modern Austrian School, was probably a determinist. My purpose is to test which metaphysical foundations best fit Austrian theory. I come to the conclusion that the economic theory of the Austrian School is consistent both with determinism (compatibilism) and metaphysical libertarianism (incompatibilism). In light of this, the determinist world-view widely embraced by scientists does not threaten the economic theory propounded by the Austrian School.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"15 1","pages":"304 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87686376","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 : 2021-03-09DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1898659
E. Braun
ABSTRACT Most economists are aware that homo economicus is not a ‘conception of man,’ but only a useful assumption. Still, homo economicus is usually interpreted as an assumption about individual agents. It is individuals who are assumed to be perfectly informed and rational. Homo economicus, however, should not be understood as an assumption about individuals as such. The assumption is only applicable where human action takes place under certain institutional preconditions. It can be applied usefully when we are dealing with legally separate individuals who interact in a monetized market economy where the production process is guided by capital-based enterprises. In short, the institutions characterizing capitalism are also those that allow for the application of the homo economicus assumption. It is necessary to make these institutional preconditions explicit because they are not natural constants and, depending on their design, some of them have ambiguous effects on the market process.
{"title":"The institutional preconditions of homo economicus","authors":"E. Braun","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1898659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1898659","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Most economists are aware that homo economicus is not a ‘conception of man,’ but only a useful assumption. Still, homo economicus is usually interpreted as an assumption about individual agents. It is individuals who are assumed to be perfectly informed and rational. Homo economicus, however, should not be understood as an assumption about individuals as such. The assumption is only applicable where human action takes place under certain institutional preconditions. It can be applied usefully when we are dealing with legally separate individuals who interact in a monetized market economy where the production process is guided by capital-based enterprises. In short, the institutions characterizing capitalism are also those that allow for the application of the homo economicus assumption. It is necessary to make these institutional preconditions explicit because they are not natural constants and, depending on their design, some of them have ambiguous effects on the market process.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"33 1","pages":"231 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83125121","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 : 2021-03-09DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1898660
W. Veit
ABSTRACT In a recent special issue dedicated to the work of Dani Rodrik, Grüne-Yanoff and Marchionni [(2018). Modeling model selection in model pluralism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488572] raise a potentially damning problem for Rodrik's suggestion that progress in economics should be understood and measured laterally, by a continuous expansion of new models. They argue that this could lead to an ‘embarrassment of riches’, i.e. the rapid expansion of our model library to such an extent that we become unable to choose between the available models, and thus needs to be solved to make ‘model pluralism’ viable. Drawing on Veit’s [(2019a). Model pluralism. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119894897] ‘model pluralism’ account, this paper argues that model pluralism as a thesis about the relationship between science and nature undermines the very idea of a general model selection framework for policy making.
在最近一期专门介绍Dani Rodrik, gr ne- yanoff和Marchionni[(2018)]工作的专刊中。模型多元化中的建模模型选择。经济方法论，25(3)，265-275。https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488572]对罗德里克的建议提出了一个潜在的致命问题，即经济学的进步应该通过不断扩展的新模型来理解和衡量。他们认为，这可能会导致“财富的尴尬”，即我们的模型库迅速扩大到这样一个程度，我们变得无法在可用的模型之间做出选择，因此需要解决使“模型多元化”可行。借鉴Veit的[2019a]。多元主义模式。社会科学哲学，50(2)，91-114。https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119894897]“模式多元主义”的解释，本文认为，模式多元主义作为一种关于科学与自然之间关系的论文，破坏了政策制定的一般模式选择框架的概念。
{"title":"Model diversity and the embarrassment of riches","authors":"W. Veit","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1898660","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1898660","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In a recent special issue dedicated to the work of Dani Rodrik, Grüne-Yanoff and Marchionni [(2018). Modeling model selection in model pluralism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488572] raise a potentially damning problem for Rodrik's suggestion that progress in economics should be understood and measured laterally, by a continuous expansion of new models. They argue that this could lead to an ‘embarrassment of riches’, i.e. the rapid expansion of our model library to such an extent that we become unable to choose between the available models, and thus needs to be solved to make ‘model pluralism’ viable. Drawing on Veit’s [(2019a). Model pluralism. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 50(2), 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119894897] ‘model pluralism’ account, this paper argues that model pluralism as a thesis about the relationship between science and nature undermines the very idea of a general model selection framework for policy making.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"62 1","pages":"291 - 303"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84491994","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 : 2021-03-05DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1892800
C. Lisciandra, J. Korbmacher
ABSTRACT We develop an account of how mutually inconsistent models of the same target system can provide coherent information about the system. Our account makes use of ideas from the debate surrounding robustness analysis and draws on the idea of a shared structure among models. To illustrate, we consider a case study from international trade-theory.
{"title":"Multiple models, one explanation","authors":"C. Lisciandra, J. Korbmacher","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1892800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1892800","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We develop an account of how mutually inconsistent models of the same target system can provide coherent information about the system. Our account makes use of ideas from the debate surrounding robustness analysis and draws on the idea of a shared structure among models. To illustrate, we consider a case study from international trade-theory.","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"11 1","pages":"186 - 206"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80203355","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 : 2021-03-03DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2021.1893979
D. Ross
Before reading two recent books of which David Colander is first author, I had thought of him as a unique gadfly who has been the best promoter of three loosely connected strands of work. He has do...
{"title":"Economic methodology for policy guidance","authors":"D. Ross","doi":"10.1080/1350178X.2021.1893979","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.1893979","url":null,"abstract":"Before reading two recent books of which David Colander is first author, I had thought of him as a unique gadfly who has been the best promoter of three loosely connected strands of work. He has do...","PeriodicalId":46507,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Methodology","volume":"65 1","pages":"340 - 347"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2021-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83769804","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 : 2021-02-18DOI: 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":"4 1","pages":"217 - 251"},"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":"77 1","pages":"336 - 339"},"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":"2005 1","pages":"165 - 185"},"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.2020.1868769
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":"32 1","pages":"32 - 39"},"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}
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：