经济学两种研究范式的碰撞与演革——再论经济学的"工具理性"与"演化视角"的矛盾统一

在经济学长期发展的演革中,一直存在着两种研究范式的争论:一种是以"经济人"逻辑演绎为基础的主流经济学;另一种是以"演进理性"的历史主义-制度主义-演进主义为基础的非主流经济学.这两种经济学研究范式争论和碰撞了上百年.其实,我们应该用一种新的视角来看待二者.主流经济学的演绎逻辑分析框架适合于分析诸如经济活动的短期优化、市场关系和企业静态结构之类的可自我实施性问题;而后者的演化分析框架则适合于分析动态的宏观经济社会问题和人类社会经济活动的演进问题等.     

构建马克思主义制度经济学的科学范式——马克思主义经济学与新制度经济学比较研究

马克思主义经济学所采用的基本方法是制度分析方法,马克思主义经济理论本质上是制度经济学理论。新制度经济学在其价值观、分析框架和基本方法等"硬核"方面同以新古典经济学为代表的西方主流经济学基本上是一致的。但从研究对象和历史分析方法等具体分析方法方面看,新制度经济学受到了马克思主义经济学的影响,同马克思主义经济学有相通之处。这就要求我们在继承与坚持马克思主义经济学基本"硬核"的基础上,借鉴与吸收新制度经济学的某些分析方法与研究成果并进行科学综合,构建马克思主义制度经济学的科学范式。     

从“看不见的手”到“市场神话”

本文考察西方现代经济学中流行已久的一个说法,即作为西方现代主流经济理论之核心的市场机制理论乃源于亚当·斯密的"看不见的手"。在缺乏文本支持的条件下,主流经济学者们选择性地解读斯密的"看不见的手"隐喻,并将其转换为"福利经济学第一定理",由此生发出"市场原教旨主义"及其"市场神话"观念。本文对斯密著述中使用的"看不见的手"隐喻进行文本考察,结果表明:斯密多处使用这一隐喻,然而其中竟无一处指涉主流经济理论;西方主流经济学者们关于亚当·斯密的"看不见的手"的那些不实吹捧是缺乏根据且具有误导性的。     

自由可以这样来追求-阿玛蒂亚·森新著《作为自由的发展》评介

对于经济学家来说,衡量经济发展的指标不外乎三个:人均收入的提高、工业化水平和城市化水平.虽然这些指标频频遭到非经济学家的批评,但一般经济学家对这些批评并不采取认真对待的态度.阿玛蒂亚·森是经济学家中的另类,他是为数不多的既在主流经济学界中享有很高声望,同时又能超乎经济学之外与其他社会科学家及人文学者对话的经济学家.在其新著《作为自由的发展》     

警惕现代经济分析中嵌入的非历史倾向——以阿西莫格鲁等人的《国家为什么会失败》为例

现代经济学者倾向于运用当前流行的理论和思维解释历史现象,阿西莫格鲁和罗宾逊的《国家为什么会失败》就是这方面的典型例子。它用新古典经济学的自由竞争市场和多元政治体制解释国家的兴盛和社会繁荣,但这种简单化的历史重构具有明显的非历史取向,从而内含着严重缺陷。从这一角度看,该书的问题表现为:一是简单地在社会的繁荣与贫困同制度的包容性间画等号,将面临一系列的历史和现实挑战;二是以现代社会"普世"价值的民主政治解释和审视人类历史,犯了绝对主义错误;三是以新古典经济学的有效市场和制度变迁理论解释经济发展史,犯了"先射箭后画靶"的错误;四是基于实践界定"有效集权"等概念犯了同义反复和社会达尔文主义错误;五是以偶然因素解释"有效集权"的成因,实际是一种非历史取向的态度;六是过于夸大民主制度这一单一因素对国家兴衰的作用,陷入"见树不见林"的视觉盲点;七是以囿于现代主流经济学信条的事后性分析指导社会实践,会导致"南橘北枳"的结果;八是以攫取性制度揭示无序式经济增长,但对"无序"的内涵存在片面性理解;九是根本问题在于囿于特定的新古典经济学分析框架,犯了逻辑实证主义错误。事实上,阿西莫格鲁等人强调的包容性制度,与其说是经济快速增长的原因,不如说是经济持续增长的结果;与其说是社会经济繁荣程度的决定因素,不如说主要是经济持续平稳增长的基础。非历史取向很大程度上也是现代主流经济学的基本特征,而这根基于其自然主义和科学主义思维之中。因此,必须认清这种非历史取向,才能科学审视现代主流经济学的思维和论断。     

经济学的性质与哲学视角审视下的经济学-一个基于经济思想史的理论回顾与展望

基于对经济思想史上一些相关文献的理论回顾,本文认为,在中国经济与中国经济学理论互动演变的当下格局中,是对经济学的性质、意义、任务以及它到底是一门什么样的学问这样一些元经济学问题进行理论反思和讨论的时候了。第二小节的文献追溯发现,在经济学说史上,伴随着由"政治经济学"向"经济学"的转变,经济学家们对经济学的本质和任务的理解也发生了很大变化。第三小节讨论了经济学能否成为一门价值中立的科学问题。研究发现,任何经济学派的理论观点都会潜含着某些价值判断和伦理原则在其中,经济学家作为一个"学术人"所面临的问题,首先是如何透过自己的文化信念和价值观,去发现人类社会中的某些"自然秩序"。第四小节讨论了经济学能否成为像物理学、化学等自然科学那样一种高度形式化的"精密科学"这一问题,并对目前主流经济学中流行的唯科学主义的研究偏向做了一些反思性的评论。本文最后所得出的结论是:为了中国的理论经济学在未来的健康成长,应该鼓励不同经济学流派和研究路径之间的竞争、对话和多元化发展。     

“仇富”与“虐穷”的考辩和理论反思

现代主流的新古典经济学承袭西方社会的自然主义思维,并在自然主义基础上赋予一定的信念形成伦理自然主义,而对存在的认知又衍生出伦理实证主义,它们把存在当成合理,并极力根据供求力量决定的均衡来设立社会规则和制度安排,并为现有制度进行辩解,从而形成了为强者利益服务的理论。然而,国内一些"主流"经济学家却心甘情愿地接受西方主流经济学合理化既定制度的根本性思维,把一切制度都看成是力量博弈的结果,以供求均衡来设计社会制度,从而产生完全有利于强势者的社会分配体制。他们不但对当前这种扭曲的事态熟视无睹,而且还总要站在强势者的一方为当前社会上出现的一些丑陋现象百般辩护。事实上,在当前中国,"虐穷"心理和"虐穷"行动远比"仇富"心理严重和广泛,但"主流"经济学家却在大肆抨击所谓的"仇富"心理。     

建构马克思主义经济学的当代范式:莫里斯· 多布的经济哲学路径

如何发展马克思主义经济学?莫里斯· 多布给出了一条经济哲学路径:即从经济学理论回溯经济学范式,从而建构马克思主义经济学的当代话语.通过考察多布的研究路径,一方面,多布积极的传播、诠释与发展马克思主义经济学;另一方面,他通过与新剑桥学派等主流经济学家的对话拓展了马克思主义经济学的当代视域.多布沟通了两种异质的经济学传统,这绝非理论本身能解决的.多布强调有什么样的范式——经济哲学,就有什么样的理论架构和论证.在这一意义上,我们看到多布是在经济哲学层面上,重建马克思主义经济学范式.因此,厘清多布的经济哲学路径,可以提供一个当代马克思主义经济学发展的全新视角.     

经济学中的“能力”概念及其反思

尽管彭罗斯的"企业成长理论"和森的"能力方法"重新将"能力"这一概念带回经济学研究视野中,但"能力"及其相关理论目前仍游离于经济学正统之外。"能力"概念及相关理论能否及,又如何成为经济学正统,预示着经济学未来研究方向和范式的转变。该文通过回顾"能力"在经济学中"消失-重现"这一变化过程,进一步厘清经济学的发展过程及其得失,发现经济学未来发展的可能方向。     

马克思经济学与西方经济学的差异性和互补性研究

马克思经济学的生命力在于其从现象到本质的研究路线及对不合理的现实进行剖析和改造。但局限于特定的历史背景,它的分析主要停留在有关社会制度的宏观层面,缺乏对微观制度的具体分析,这也正是马克思经济学研究所面临的困境。在微观行为机理及影响因素实证方面,现代西方主流经济学有很大发展。马克思经济学的发展需要契合西方主流经济学研究具体微观问题的工具、模型及理论。将马克思经济学的研究方法与现代西方主流经济学的表达工具和检验手段结合起来,就可形成更全面的分析体系。     

Brands of Economics and the Trojan Horse of Pluralism

This paper examines the current status and prospects of heterodox approaches to economics in relation to the problem of marketing ideas to groups of potential users who see the world in very different ways. It draws lessons from the changing status of behavioural economics and highlights the marketing problems that arise between heterodox economists whose perspectives overlap only partially. Its principal message is that the best hope for heterodox economics may lie in taking a less openly combative approach than hitherto when trying to win over mainstream economists and instead using strategies of stealth based on the empirical advantages of pluralistic applied research methods.     

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.     

What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought

Since its intellectual inception, the development of the economics discipline has been accompanied by divergence of thought. Through the years, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, a fissure has emerged within the discipline, sociologically dividing conventional, mainstream economics from the dissention of heterodox economics. The nature of that division, however, as well as the nature of heterodox thought is unclear. Historians of economic thought would seem to be uniquely suited to specify the nature of heterodox economics and the mechanism of its marginalization. Although anecdotal, personal interviews with historians of economic thought provide a breadth and depth of study not available through surveys with an immediacy not allowed by doctrinal examination. The purpose of this study and intent of this paper is to reveal the ways that orthodox and heterodox economics differ, whether heterodox economics has any clear research program other than criticizing the limits of the more orthodox view, and what aspects of heterodox economics remain underdeveloped, all through the lens of the historian of economic thought.

What is Heterodox Economics? Conversations with Historians of Economic Thought

Since its intellectual inception, the development of the economics discipline has been accompanied by divergence of thought. Through the years, particularly in the latter half of the twentieth century, a fissure has emerged within the discipline, sociologically dividing conventional, mainstream economics from the dissention of heterodox economics. The nature of that division, however, as well as the nature of heterodox thought is unclear. Historians of economic thought would seem to be uniquely suited to specify the nature of heterodox economics and the mechanism of its marginalization. Although anecdotal, personal interviews with historians of economic thought provide a breadth and depth of study not available through surveys with an immediacy not allowed by doctrinal examination. The purpose of this study and intent of this paper is to reveal the ways that orthodox and heterodox economics differ, whether heterodox economics has any clear research program other than criticizing the limits of the more orthodox view, and what aspects of heterodox economics remain underdeveloped, all through the lens of the historian of economic thought.     

Austrian economics at the cutting edge

Austrian economists today have a valuable opportunity to rejoin the mainstream of the economics profession. As Colander, Holt, and Rosser have argued, neoclassical orthodoxy is no long mainstream. What I call the “heterodox mainstream” is an emerging new orthodoxy. The five leading characteristics of the emerging new orthodoxy are bounded rationality, rule following, institutions, cognition, and evolution. When listed in this order, they suggest the acronym BRICE. The Austrian school is also an example of BRICE economics. The shared themes of BRICE economics create an opportunity for intellectual exchange between Austrians and other elements of the heterodox mainstream. Although Austrians should engage the heterodox mainstream energetically, they should also defend the essential elements of an early version of neoclassical economics, elements at risk of becoming half-forgotten themes of an earlier era. These elements are supply and demand, marginalist logic, opportunity-cost reasoning, and the elementary theory of markets. JEL Codes A14, B50, B53 This text is an edited version of a talk given in Washington, D.C. on 19 November 2005 at the SDAE annual dinner. I thank persons present at that time for a helpful discussion. I also thank William Butos, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, and Peter Lewin for useful comments on an earlier draft.     

Orthodox Core–Heterodox Periphery? Contrasting Citation Networks of Economics Departments in Vienna

ABSTRACT

The notion of an ‘orthodox core–heterodox periphery’ structure and the extent of interdisciplinary links have been widely discussed, and partially investigated bibliometrically, within economic discourse. We extend this research by applying tools from social network analysis to citation data of three economics departments located in Vienna, two mainstream and one non-mainstream, to assess their relative citation patterns. We show that both mainstream economics departments follow the asserted core–periphery pattern and have a mono-disciplinary research focus, while the citation network of the non-mainstream department has a polycentric structure and is both more heterodox and interdisciplinary. These findings suggest that discussions about the future of heterodox economics should pay more attention to the organizational level and seek allies from other disciplines.     

The State,Public Policy and Heterodox Economics: An Introduction

While most heterodox economists endorse some amount of policy activism, there is no unified conception of the state and public policy in heterodox economics. To help clarify the similarities and differences within heterodoxy – and between heterodox and mainstream economics – a panel addressing this subject was convened in 2007 at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Thought. This article introduces the essays prepared for that symposium. They include an examination of the position of Marx and Engels, a clarification of the institutionalist views of Veblen and Commons, an outline of the perspective of Post Keynesian Institutionalism, and an account of some essential contributions of Classical Pragmatism (a major school of thought within the philosophy of science). The collection advances what Robert Heilbroner called “the worldly philosophy” by seeking to understand the role of the state in a world where institutions, defined broadly as social habits, adjust to other institutions.

Teaching Heterodox Economics: Introduction to the Special Issue

This introduction to the special issue of the Forum for Social Economics on teaching heterodox economics provides an overview of the papers in this volume. The papers demonstrate that heterodox economists are particularly gifted at explaining the dynamics of the real world economy; therefore, heterodox economics instruction often specializes in, and benefits from, immersing students into real world situations. Heterodox economists push pedagogic boundaries by directly confronting students with real-world data and situations. In the process, students achieve a rich understanding of the world as it is and not as a hypothetical myth. The overview of papers is followed by suggestions for future work on teaching heterodox economics, and acknowledgments of those who made this special issue possible.     

Post Keynesians and Others

I begin by considering four alternative positions on the correct relationship between Post Keynesians and mainstream economics: opposition, cooperation, neglect and stealth; I argue that sustained opposition is the only viable strategy. Next I discuss the appropriate relationship between Post Keynesians and mainstream dissenters, concluding that relatively little can be expected to come from it. I then assess the link between Post Keynesians and other schools of heterodox economics, which I consider to be one of friendly pluralism rather than fundamental unity. I conclude that Post Keynesians should remain open to ideas from other heterodox traditions, and might also benefit from becoming more inter-disciplinary.     

Perspectives for Post-Keynesian Economics

The paper reviews and assesses the negative and positive advice which has been offered by various fellow economists to heterodox economists in general, and Post-Keynesian economists in particular, in light of changes that have occurred within neoclassical economics and in light of the rising hegemony of mainstream economics in economics departments. Various strategies are considered, among which is more engagement with orthodox dissenters, but it is concluded that the majority of heterodox economists ought instead to engage more with other heterodox economists and possibly other social sciences, developing and expanding their own agenda around real-world problems.