Rigor in Economics means Pluralism

Abstract

The two books under review could not be more different in terms of their main subject matter and writing style, but their central message is exactly the same: only a pluralist economics is scientifically rigorous and explanatorily honest and fruitful. Both books underpin this important point in their own ways. While Fullbrook draws on a wide range of history of thought in economics, philosophy and the sciences, his epistemological argument is relatively easy to grasp and full of catch phrases. Marchionatti and Cedrini on the other hand review the century long methodological dispute between economists and economic anthropologists. Their treatment of these debates is very detailed. So, it can be a bit of a struggle at times to follow the intricacies of the defensive arguments used by anthropologists in their battles against imperial attacks by economists. However, by providing an outline of the basic arguments at the start and a concluding summary at the end of most of their chapters the authors make these debates very comprehensive while offering a very thorough historical comparative overview of economic imperialism and the defences of its anthropological opponents. In critiquing its philosophical foundation, Fullbrook argues convincingly that the mainstream narrative in economics is ideologically biased and conceptually too narrow to investigate economic behaviour based on social bonds, inter-subjectivity and real freedom. To allow for such analysis, he concludes, we will need to move towards true pluralism of methods in economics.     

Women and Retirement Pensions: A Research Review

Abstract

The links between women's caring work and access to economic resources are particularly critical in the context of widespread public policy debates about retirement and pensions, many of which neglect care as a key issue for analysis. However, among feminist economists it is widely recognized that women's patterns of care provision have adverse implications for their access to economic resources in later life. The feminist economics literature examines many of the interactions between women's caring roles and their access to resources, particularly women's capacity to access economic resources through publicly mandated or regulated pension schemes. This article reviews research that places women's patterns of work and care at the center of analyses of retirement pension policy in an effort to provide a summary of research on gender and pensions policy and to contrast the extent to which differing institutional and policy frameworks accommodate women's caring roles.     

Imagining Economics Otherwise: Encounters with Identity/Difference

How can theoretical criticisms to economics introduced by feminist economists be addressed empirically? Feminist scholars outside economics have spent considerable time debating appropriate methods and have often argued that interactive, situated research is more appropriate for answering feminist concerns. By telling the stories of three Palestinian women, I provide examples where qualitative research can enhance and even challenge quantitative research. I argue that our understanding of concepts such as power, individualism and preference formation will be enhanced by the use of qualitative methods and that feminist economists should be among those questioning the narrow definition of acceptable evidence articulated by mainstream economists.     

Homo Economicus,AIs, humans and rats: decision-making and economic welfare

ABSTRACT

Critics of economics often highlight two related issues: the empirical falsity of the ‘homo economicus’ assumption of rational, self-interested maximisation; and the ethical consequences of models based on this assumption. Yet many experiments in biology show non-human creatures often seem to behave as if they were rational maximisers, suggesting that context rather than cognitive capacity is important for determining behaviour. The critique of rational choice poses a less serious methodological challenge to economics than is sometimes thought. However, economists do need to respond to the ethical critique that decisions and policies based on the assumption of rational self-interested maximisation change the norms of individual behaviour for the worse. This paper argues that economics has become divorced from ethics because for a century it has dealt only with ordinal, not cardinal, welfare rankings and has thus ruled out interpersonal comparisons. While enabling economists to separate normative from positive analysis, this separation protocol has left welfare economics both internally contradictory and unable to address major societal decisions, even though welfare economics is used constantly in limited ways, such as cost-benefit analysis. This separation reflects empirically inaccurate assumptions concerning preference formation and the conditions of supply and demand (but not the rational choice assumption) in the foundational welfare economic theorems. Economics must urgently revisit welfare economics, particularly in the context of modern economies in which individuals are increasingly interdependent, and the assumptions required for the fundamental welfare theorems therefore increasingly invalid.     

The changing face of mainstream economics

This article argues that economics is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in its method, away from neoclassical economics and into something new. Although that something new has not been fully developed, it is beginning to take form and is centered on dynamics, recursive methods and complexity theory. The foundation of this change is coming from economists who are doing cutting edge work and influencing mainstream economics. These economists are defining and laying the theoretical groundwork for the fundamental shift that is occurring in the economics profession.     

Calls for change. The scientific status of economic theory and the future of democracy: A review of three recent contributions

Abstract

After the last financial crisis, economic theory and economists have largely lost their credibility. Not having been able to foresee and explain the recession, they have clearly shown that a deep methodological reform of the discipline is necessary. With its restrictive assumptions and the self-referentiality of formal models, mainstream economics has indeed become highly unrealistic and therefore unable to face the deep and evident problems of capitalistic society. The books reviewed in this paper try to criticize economic theory from three closely related points of view: the technical drift that has endangered democracy and annulled the role of citizens in public choices, the sometimes obscure role of economists and the way through which articles of low scientific relevance are published, and finally the decisive role of the Nobel Prize in economics to legitimize the market turn begun in the 1970s. Considering such a discouraging picture, it is necessary to ask whether there is still hope for reforming economics and if, possibly returning to the classics of economic thought, it is still possible to carry out a struggle based on ideas and not on dogmatic prejudices.     

Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology

Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.     

Scientific misconduct and research ethics in economics: an introduction

Abstract

Since the screening of Inside Job in movie theatres around the world in 2010, research integrity in economics has been questioned by scholars and public intellectuals. Prestigious economists and policy makers are accused of conflicts of interest while prominent economists are charged with plagiarism and self-plagiarism. Some of these economists replied to accusations about themselves while many others have preferred not to respond at all. These days, economists hear the following question more often than before: “what is wrong with economics?”     

Coase on the nature of economics

Recent writings on Coase's methodology largely focus on method,at the risk of underappreciating his substantive view of economics.That economics has as its subject matter the working of thereal world economic system is Coase's main methodological messageand is also the key to understanding Coase's other methodologicalconcerns. Coase's methodological position is illustrated inthis paper by comparing him with other economists in terms oftheir differing research programmes informed by their methodologicalstances. Along the way, this paper outlines the new institutionaleconomics, a research programme inspired by Coase's methodology.     

A brief history of cliometrics and the evolving view of the industrial revolution

Abstract

Over the past century and a half, economists have differed on methodology, interpretation, and explanation of the causes, consequences, and proper approach to understanding the historical period commonly referred to as the Industrial Revolution. The impact of the methodological debate over the role of theory and history in economics, and the growth of cliometrics on the ways in which we think about and analyze the Industrial Revolution have been primary factors in this debate. This article uses the rise of cliometrics as a lens through which to view the intellectual history of economists’ views of the Industrial Revolution. It is not in itself an attempt to explain the causes or consequences of the Industrial Revolution, but rather, an overview of the evolution of the approaches that economists have used to define what constituted the Industrial Revolution, when it occurred, and how to explain its causes and why it occurred when and where it did.     

Pigou on philosophy and religion

Abstract

This article discusses a group of essays on ethical issues written by Pigou between 1900 and 1908. It is argued that they contain the foundations of his economic philosophy. Pigou's research on the meaning and content of the good merged into his definition of welfare, and his interest in religion as a subjective experience resurfaced in the subjective framework of his economics. A methodological pragmatism informed his economics as well as his ethics; moreover, the endorsement of interpersonal comparisons of the good in the ethical texts was consistent with Pigou's adoption of utility comparisons in welfare economics. Pigou's philosophical pessimism was reflected in his analysis of the economic evils of society, eventually leading to his advocacy of governmental intervention to foster economic welfare. The article contends that Pigou's philosophy derived not only from Sidgwick, as commonly believed, but also from G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica.     

Heterodox Economics and its Critics

Heterodox economics has its critics. Most of the criticisms are friendly comments and analysis directed towards improving heterodox economic theory. However, the critics and their criticisms that are the concern of this article are the ones that challenge the existence of heterodox economic theory and the community of heterodox economists as manifested through their graduate programs, conferences, journals and identity. These critics observe that the academic status quo in economics, as manifested in its department and journal rankings, rules of academic engagement, and its institutions and organizations, favor mainstream economics and that it is unlikely to change in the future. Consequently, they argue that heterodox economists can survive only if they become more like mainstream economists. With focus on assimilation, the critics direct their criticisms towards the social characteristics of the heterodox community and to the personal characteristics of heterodox economists. This article is a response to the critics.     

Paths of the Weberian–Austrian Interconnection

This paper centers on the theoretical–methodological interconnections between Weber and the Austrian economists. First, the influence of classical Austrian economics, especially Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, on Weber is reexamined. Then we are concerned with the importance of Weber's ideas in neoclassical Austrian economics, including Schumpeter, Mises and Hayek. Also, Weber's legacy in modern economics is reconsidered. Since little research is done on these interconnections between Weber's sociology and Austrian economics, the paper thereby contributes toward spanning a gap in the present economic and sociological literature.     

THE CITATION IMPACT OF FEMINIST ECONOMICS

Abstract

Feminist economics is a transformative project. However, transformation generates resistance. Feminist economics can be deliberately excluded, co-opted through an uncritical application of rational choice theory, or ignored. And feminist economics can be listened to: when the United Nations consults feminist economists; when feminist economists publish in widely read journals; when a student finds inspiration in a Feminist Economics article. All of these are ways feminist economics can, and has, influenced the profession. After ten years of discourse, it is possible to take stock and assess the impact of feminist economics. This article provides a partial assessment through a consideration of citations of the journal Feminist Economics, describing its impact on mainstream economics, heterodox economics, and other disciplines. While the overall project of feminist economics encompasses much more than just one journal, studying the citations for Feminist Economics is a first step toward assessing the influence of the entire corpus.     

INTRODUCTION / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN US UNIVERSITIES AND THE WORLD / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN UK UNIVERSITIES / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES / THE STATUS OF WOMEN ECONOMISTS IN CHINA'S UNIVERSITIES

Abstract

These Explorations, by eight authors from Canada, China, the US, and the UK, examine the current status of women in economics (with an eye mainly toward their status in the academic branch of the profession). The four sections of the work analyze results of surveys that show the distribution of academic positions among women economists in universities in Canada, the UK, the US, and China. The work also provides a short history of the development of committees and groups interested in furthering the status of women in the economics profession and suggests ways to improve the efforts of such groups and the status of women economists.     

When Italian economics “Was Second to None”. Luigi Einaudi and the Turin School of Economics

Abstract

The article is dedicated to the work of a group of economists that was an important expression of a fertile season of Italian economics, in the period from the mid-1890s to the end of 1930s, which developed around the figure of Luigi Einaudi, and earlier, around that of his master Cognetti de Martiis. This School expressed a range of thought of high value in the political and economic sphere. In the economic field, the School established a fertile relation between historical–empirical work and economic theory; in the political field it investigated the relation between freedom and economic order.     

Ego Facing Alter: How Economists have Depicted Human Interactions

The paper analyses, in a historical perspective, how economists approached human interactions. In particular it is aimed at: (a) showing that in the beginning of economic science some economists, Genovesi and Smith in particular, analysed many dimensions of human interactions, and their account of rational economic behaviour was complex and not only instrumental; (b) analysing, through the works of Pareto and Wicksteed, the main turning point in the history of economics which reduced interactions to the sole instrumental one; (c) highlight some methodological questions and doubts on how contemporary economics approaches interactions.     

Incommensurability of Economic Paradigms: A case study of the monetary theories of Mises and Marx

Influenced by postmodern philosophy, economists have held that substantive propositions made by rival schools of economics are parts of 'incommensurable paradigms'. The incommensurability thesis implies that one cannot cross evaluate or adjudicate between substantive propositions made within rival paradigms. This paper provides a framework to examine the tenets of the incommensurability thesis through a comparative case study of the rival monetary theories of Ludwig von Mises and Karl Marx. Section 1 presents the case for the incommensurability of economic paradigms as postmodernists and their predecessors assert. It defines three elements that constitute an economic paradigm? starting points, methodological procedures, and conceptual schemes. Sections 2, 3 and 4 examine whether the three paradigmatic elements in the monetary theories of Mises and Marx are incommensurable. Section 5 concludes by drawing implications for paradigm (in)commensurability.     

An Institutional Explanation for Economists’ Theoretical and Methodological Choices

Scientific research in general and economics research in particular is a social act. More specifically, schools of economic thought as well as associations, research groups and conferences are expressions of social organizations within the realm of economics. Historically, studies investigating the methodologies used in economics have focused on the strengths of these social organizations. This study aims to analyze the key roles played by individuals within social organizations in building and reinforcing economics and, in turn, their influence on these individuals. To achieve this goal, we use an institutionalist approach in a broad sense. We show how economics as an academic environment can be presented as an institutional entanglement and how an institutionalist approach can enhance an understanding of why economists adopt a particular theoretical and methodological perspective. It is argued that habits, observations and cognitive abilities should be seriously considered to understand the logic and decision making of economic researchers. We discuss also the importance of forming groups in the process of institutionalizing elements relevant to an economic researcher’s logic and decision making and present an interpretation of mainstream economics in terms of the analytical approach of our study.     

Publication Performance of Economists and Economics Departments in Turkey (1999–2003)

This is the first study evaluating the publication performances of economists and economics departments in Turkey. The international (article) publication performance of Turkish economic departments in general is found to be rather poor. There is a wide gap in particular between the top five universities and the economists affiliated to them and those outside the top five. The paper also provides evidence in favour of private higher education. The publication patterns of economists in Turkey are shown to be similar to those of their counterparts in the rest of the world.