IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bus/jphile/v10y2016i1n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics

Author

Listed:
  • Stavros A. DRAKOPOULOS

    () (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (Greece))

Abstract

The methodological foundations of mainstream economics have been cited as one of the main reasons for its failure to account for the economic crisis of 2008. In spite of this, the status of economic methodology has not been elevated. This is due to the persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. The anti-methodology stance has a long presence as exemplified in Frank Hahn’s (1992) work. After focusing on the debate originating after the publication of Hahn’s arguments, the paper offers a categorization of the main explanations for mainstream methodological aversion. Subsequently, it suggests an explanation based on the role of the physics scientific ideal, arguing that the endeavor to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. The relevant writings of the extremely influential mainstream economists Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, reinforce the assertion that the alleged hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. The paper also calls for a more systematic discussion of this issue, especially in the wake of the line of argument that links the recent failings of mainstream economics to its methodological basis

Suggested Citation

  • Stavros A. DRAKOPOULOS, 2016. "Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 28-57, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:bus:jphile:v:10:y:2016:i:1:n:2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://jpe.ro/pdf.php?id=7691
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://jpe.ro/?id=revista&p=440
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. COLANDER & al., 2010. "The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 6.
    2. Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-164, Winter.
    3. Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "A perspective on psychology and economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 657-685, May.
    4. Andrew E. Clark & Paul Frijters & Michael A. Shields, 2008. "Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 95-144, March.
    5. Hands,D. Wade, 2001. "Reflection without Rules," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497152.
    6. Hendry, David F., 2000. "Econometrics: Alchemy or Science?: Essays in Econometric Methodology," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198293545.
    7. Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists: Response," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 222-222, Fall.
    8. David Colander & Richard Holt & Barkley Rosser, 2004. "The changing face of mainstream economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 485-499.
    9. Vinca Bigo & Ioana Negru, 2014. "Mathematical modelling in the wake of the crisis: a blessing or a curse? What does the economics profession say?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 329-347.
    10. Tony Lawson, 1994. "Why are so many economists so opposed to methodology?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 105-134.
    11. Hoover, Kevin D, 1995. "Why Does Methodology Matter for Economics? Review Article," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(430), pages 715-734, May.
    12. Tobin, James, 1985. "Neoclassical Theory in America: J. B. Clark and Fisher," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(6), pages 28-38, December.
    13. Mirowski, Philip, 1984. "Physics and the 'Marginalist Revolution.'," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 361-379, December.
    14. John B. Davis, 2007. "The turn in economics and the turn in economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 275-290.
    15. Roger Backhouse, 2010. "Methodology in action," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 3-15.
    16. Beed, Clive & Kane, Owen, 1991. "What Is the Critique of the Mathematization of Economics?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 581-612.
    17. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, September.
    18. Beker, Victor A., 2010. "On the economic crisis and the crisis of economics," Economics Discussion Papers 2010-18, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
    19. Cairnes, John E., 1888. "The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 2, number cairnes1888.
    20. Bruno S. Frey, 2008. "Happiness: A Revolution in Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262062771, March.
    21. Robert Boyer, 2013. "The Present Crisis. A Trump for a Renewed Political Economy," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 1-38, January.
    22. Robert J. Shiller, 2010. "How Should the Financial Crisis Change How We Teach Economics?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 403-409, September.
    23. Paul A. Samuelson, 1998. "How Foundations Came to Be," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1375-1386, September.
    24. Mill, John Stuart, 1874. "Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 2, number mill1874.
    25. David Colander, 2010. "The economics profession, the financial crisis, and method," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 419-427.
    26. Salim Rashid, 1994. "John von Neumann, scientific method and empirical economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 279-294.
    27. D. Wade Hands, 2002. "Economic methodology is dead - long live economic methodology: thirteen theses on the new economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 49-63.
    28. Jevons, William Stanley, 1871. "The Theory of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number jevons1871.
    29. Debreu, Gerard, 1991. "The Mathematization of Economic Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 1-7, March.
    30. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2006. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism - Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, Elsevier.
    31. Turk, Michael H., 2012. "The Mathematical Turn In Economics: Walras, The French Mathematicians, And The Road Not Taken," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(02), pages 149-167, June.
    32. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019.
    33. Joanna Dzionek-Kozlowska, 2015. "Economics in times of crisis. In search of a new paradigm in economic sciences," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 9(1), November.
    34. Philip Mirowski, 1992. "Do economists suffer from physics envy?," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 61-68, Spring.
    35. Philip Mirowski, 1992. "What Were von Neumann and Morgenstern Trying to Accomplish?," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 113-147, Supplemen.
    36. Bruce Caldwell, 2013. "Presidential Address — Of Positivism and the History of Economic Thought," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 753-767, April.
    37. Philip Mirowski, 1991. "The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economic Analysis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 145-157, Winter.
    38. Roger E. Backhouse, 2015. "Revisiting Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 326-350, June.
    39. Kevin Hoover, 2010. "Introduction: Methodological implications of the financial crisis," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 397-398.
    40. Bruce J. Caldwell, 1990. "Does methodology matter? : how should it be practiced?," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 64-71, Spring.
    41. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230.
    42. Stavros Drakopoulos & Ioannis Katselidis, 2015. "From Edgeworth to econophysics: a methodological perspective," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 77-95, March.
    43. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Economic Imperialism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(1), pages 99-146.
    44. repec:spr:fimops:978-3-319-20991-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    45. Elster Jon, 2009. "Excessive Ambitions," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-33, October.
    46. Steve Keen, 2011. "Debunking Macroeconomics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 147-168, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    economic methodology; history of economic thought; economic crisis;

    JEL classification:

    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bus:jphile:v:10:y:2016:i:1:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Valentin Cojanu). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.