The last generalists

Abstract

The general trend of research specialisation in economics has contributed to the marginalisation of the history of economic thought. However, it has also led to a state of fragmentation in the profession and thereby increased the costs of neglecting the history of economic thought. This paper argues that historians of thought can help to counteract fragmentation because they are special generalists that fulfil multiple functions, for example, in the education of economists, the detection of blind spots in modern theories and the identification of routes for innovation by backtracking.     

The “Treasury View”: An (un-)expected return?

Abstract

By examining the rhetorical use of an old piece of economic theory by some contemporary economists, this paper intends to report on “how today's economists conduct a public policy debate”. This paper is neither a scholarly history of the interwar debate nor a sophisticated critique of current economic policy. It is an attempt to link the policy and theoretical arguments of two similar debates separated by nearly 80 years. The second part of the paper demonstrates that the (un-)expected return of the Treasury View is a case study illustrating two very different modelling strategies.     

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.     

Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success

Abstract

This essay is a comment on“The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics”by Frances Woolley, which appeared in Feminist Economics, Vol. 11, No. 3, November 2005.

This contribution comments on Frances Woolley's recent Feminist Economics article, “The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics.” It points to two avenues through which Woolley's article could have better illuminated the extent of Feminist Economics' scholarly relationship with the communities of both heterodox and mainstream economists: first, she omits several important heterodox economic journals in her study, and second, she could have offered a more critical evaluation of mainstream journals and economists relative to Feminist Economics and feminist economists. This paper uses citation data drawn from ten heterodox and ten mainstream journals to identify and build on these gaps.     

The quantitative turn in the history of economics: promises,perils and challenges

ABSTRACT

A quantitative turn in history of economic thought is looming. We argue that engineering it consciously is of crucial importance for historians of economics. We also highlight the limitations of quantitative techniques. Yet, the combination of qualitative and quantitative research could substantially enrich our narratives of the development of economics and its practice, of how ideas and tools disseminate and influence other spheres. A failed quantitative turn could lead our field to a house divided and, in the worst case, a civil war.     

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.     

From economic stability to social order: The debate about business cycle theory in the 1920s and its relevance for the development of theories of social order by Lowe,Hayek and Eucken∗

Abstract

The concepts of Adolph Lowe, Friedrich A. Hayek and Walter Eucken play an important role in the discussion of an adequate theory of economic and social order. It is noteworthy that at the beginning of their academic careers, these three economists dealt primarily with questions of business cycle theory. As we will show, this is not coincidental, but can be explained by economic history and the history of theory. Furthermore, all three economists agree that establishing a comprehensive social order would provide the basis for economic stability, although each postulates a different relationship between liberty and order.     

A quantitative turn in the historiography of economics?

ABSTRACT

Quantitative approaches are not yet common among historians and methodologists of economics, although they are in the study of science by librarians, information scientists, sociologists, historians, and even economists. The main purpose of this essay is to reflect methodologically on the historiography of economics: is it witnessing a quantitative turn? Is such a turn desirable? We answer the first question by pointing out a ‘methodological moment’, in general, and a noticeable rise of quantitative studies among historians of economics during the past few years. To the second question, all contributors to this special issue bring relatively optimistic answers by highlighting the benefits of using quantitative methodologies as complements to the more traditional meta-analyses of both historians and methodologists of economics.     

The question of inheritance in mid-nineteenth century French liberal thought

Abstract

In this paper, we explore a French debate in the nineteenth century Liberal School: the question of inheritance. We first present the opposition among liberal economists between the advocates of the liberty of bequest and the defenders of its limitations. We then try to show that these contrasted positions cannot be reduced to the confrontation between the doctrine of natural rights and the principle of social utility. Finally, we propose another explanation for the divergences of the Liberal School through different conceptions of the State.     

Quantifying central banks’ scientization: why and how to do a quantified organizational history of economics

ABSTRACT

A subset of research in the history of economics is organizational history – i.e. the study of the organizations producing, circulating and applying economic ideas. This article maintains that some research questions in organizational history call for quantitative methods because they ask about magnitudes. More precisely, we claim that quantitative methods should complement rather than replace other research methods when the research question is at least partly about magnitudes. We walk the walk with a study of one type of organization, central banks, and of its changing relationship with economic science. Our results point unambiguously toward a growing dominance of central banks in the specialized field of monetary economics. Central banks have swelling research armies, they publish a growing share of the articles in specialized scholarly journals, and these articles tend to have more impact today than the articles produced outside central banks.     

The neglect of replacement investment in keynesian economics

Abstract

This article describes Keynes's early analysis of replacement investment and his subsequent neglect of the subject, especially by his followers. It goes on to explain how this deficiency helped to mislead later economists who attempted to use Keynes as a guide for economic policy and theory and the consequences of the errors of these economists.     

Whither the history of economic thought? Going nowhere rather slowly?∗

Abstract

The paper argues that economics is not a perfect selection mechanism that preserves each and every economic idea that is valid and useful and jettisons all ideas that are not. The teleological view of the subject cannot be sustained. Therefore the task of the history of economic thought cannot be limited to the study of the past from the present state of economics. Another important task is to study the present state of economics from the standpoint of past authors in order to see what has been gained and what lost in the course of time. The history of the subject is a treasure trove of ideas. The history of economic thought may play a useful role by preserving valuable ideas which otherwise would fall into oblivion. To foster the subject is therefore also in the interest of general economists.     

Institutional Adjustment,Instrumental Efficiency,and Reasonable Value

Abstract:

In this paper, we apply Celso Furtado’s vision of the process of economic development to the United States’ economy. Furtado was a creator of Latin American structuralism and continues to be one of the region’s most influential economists. Yet, he is little known in the English literature. As we argue, there are few academics who offer a theoretical framework capable of robustly evaluating the current trajectory of U.S. economic development with the depth of Furtado. Through his analytical lens, and with some help from John Maynard Keynes, we examine the present reality, as well as the more remote economic history of the US. We argue that, seen through Furtado’s lens, the US can now be accurately described as an under-developing economy.     

The Rejection of Qualitative Research Methods in Economics

Abstract:

The article analyzes the status quo of qualitative methods in economics. While a majority of economists consider knowledge of empirical research methods to be of considerable importance, it must be noted that qualitative research methods are scarcely implemented in economic publications. Given all the advantages of qualitative research methods, the reasons and processes responsible for the rejection of qualitative research methods in economics must be empirically identified and further discussed. To gain insights into the perception and application of qualitative research methods in economics revealing the status and representational patterns in qualitative social research. I addressed professors, editors of economic journals, and postdocs from Germany to access economists’ functional orientations and interpretative patterns, in order to establish preliminary indicators with regard to the subject-specific perspectives and the underlying scientific conceptions of economists. My findings reveal a fundamental rejection of qualitative research methods in economics due to methodological critique, a nomothetic world view and missing career opportunities. The article intends to initiate a discussion about the missing opportunities of the methodological contraction in the economic profession.     

环境保护中的经济分析法之反思——建构质变效应上的刑法保护措施

对于环境保护，经济学家们往往基于一种理性人的假设，主张适用庇古税和排污权交易来达到环境保护的目的。这样，经济学家们往往忽视了环境保护中的人本思想。因此，我们提出了一种量变与质变相结合的多元治理结构来保护环境。而且，质变阶段的环境刑法保护手段是不可缺少的，也是需要完善的。     

Neuroeconomics: Infeasible and Underdetermined

Advocates of neuroeconomics claim to offer the prospect of creating a “unified behavioral theory” by drawing upon the techniques of neuroscience and psychology and combining them with economic theory. Ostensibly, through the “direct measurement” of our thoughts, economics and social science will be “revolutionized.” Such claims have been subject to critique from mainstream and non-mainstream economists alike. Many of these criticisms relate to measurability, relevance, and coherence. In this article, we seek to contribute to this critical examination by investigating the potential of underdetermination, such as the statement that testing involves the conjunction of auxiliary assumptions, and that consequently it may not be possible to isolate the effect of any given hypothesis. We argue that neuroeconomics is especially sensitive to issues of underdetermination. Institutional economists should be cautious of neuroeconomists’ zeal as they appear to over-interpret experimental findings and, therefore, neuroeconomics may provide a false prospectus seeking to reinforce the nostrums of homo economicus.     

Continuity and change: Mapping the community of economists in Greece (1944 to 1967)

Abstract

This paper combines quantitative, biographical and qualitative data to trace out the structure and dynamics of Greece's post-war community of economists, and explore its implications for the country's economic discourse. Greek economics was a state-centred profession whose fate was intertwined with that of the post-war developmental state apparatus. Most economists were employed in universities, the civil service or banking, with substantial interpenetration between branches. This configuration of professional constituencies, in conjunction with the structural features of each institution, conditioned the form and content of economic discourse. Professional and ideological cohesion went hand in hand, whilst substantial degrees of vertical and horizontal control by senior members further fostered consensus and increased professional sclerosis. Nevertheless, evidence from a new database of economic journal publications suggests that a substantial realignment took place in the late 1950s and 1960s, as a younger generation of scholars – most of them educated in the post-war UK/US, and affiliated with the newly established Centre for Planning and Economic Research – entered the scene.     

Five reasons for the use of network analysis in the history of economics

ABSTRACT

Network analysis is increasingly appreciated as a methodology in the social sciences. In recent years, it is also receiving attention among historians of science. History of economics is no exception in that researchers have begun to use network analysis to study a variety of topics, including collaborations and interactions in scientific communities, the spread of economic theories within and across fields, or the formation of new specialties in the discipline of economics. Against this backdrop, a debate is emerging about how network analysis can help address questions that are pertinent to the history of economics. With this paper, we want to push this debate one step forward by offering and discussing five reasons why network analysis should have a future in the history of economics.     

Between mathematical formalism,normative choice rules,and the behavioural sciences: The emergence of rational choice theories in the late 1940s and early 1950s

Abstract

This paper discusses why mathematical economists of the early Cold War period favored formal-axiomatic over behavioral choice theories. One reason was that formal-axiomatic theories allowed mathematical economists to improve the conceptual and theoretical foundations of economics and thereby to increase its scientific status. Furthermore, the separation between mathematical economics and other behavioral sciences was not as clear-cut as often argued. While economists did not modify their behavioral assumptions, some acknowledged the empirical shortcomings of their models. The paper reveals the multifaceted nature of rational choice theories reflected in the changing interpretations and roles of the theories in those early years.     

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.