AbstractThe model of economic man is either empirically testable and false, or it is non-testable and always true. The fact that neither position is entirely satisfactory is called Macaulay’s problem. This paper first reviews and criticizes various attitudes toward this problem and then argues that Macaulay’s problem is a pseudoproblem, because it assumes that the explicandum of the economic man model is individual behavior. Contrary to this assumption it is argued that the model attempts to explain changes of people’s behavior on an aggregate level in response to changes in constraints. The paper posits that all the studied attitudes pertaining to Macaulay’s problem can be reinterpreted and, to a great extent, reconciled in light of this view. It is also argued that this view helps to explain why the usual criticisms of the economic man model miss the point. A method for effective criticism is suggested
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by ICER - International Centre for Economic Research in its series ICER Working Papers with number 01-2013.
Length: 18 pages
Date of creation: May 2013
Date of revision:
economic man; “as if” explanations; apriorism; rational choice; methodology of economics; empirical content of theories;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
- D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-09-25 (All new papers)
- NEP-HPE-2013-09-25 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-LAM-2013-09-25 (Central & South America)
- NEP-LTV-2013-09-25 (Unemployment, Inequality & Poverty)
- NEP-NEU-2013-09-25 (Neuroeconomics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, April.
- Berg, Nathan & Gigerenzer, Gerd, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: Neoclassical economics in disguise?," MPRA Paper 26586, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Mongin, Philippe, 1986. "Are “All-and-Some” Statements Falsifiable After All?: The Example of Utility Theory," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(02), pages 185-195, October.
- R. Duncan Luce & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1994. "What Common Ground Exists for Descriptive, Prescriptive, and Normative Utility Theories?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 263-279, February.
- Boland, Lawrence A, 1981. "On the Futility of Criticizing the Neoclassical Maximization Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(5), pages 1031-36, December.
- Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
- Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, April.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alessandra Calosso).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.