IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v12y2016i01p63-78_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The humanities are scientific: a reply to the defenses of economic neo-institutionalism

Author

Listed:
  • McCLOSKEY, DEIRDRE NANSEN

Abstract

I reply to amiable criticisms by Greif, Mokyr, Langlois, Lawson, and Tabellini of my own criticism of neo-institutionalism. They say that ‘culture’ is included in neo-institutionalism – which is mistaken on any serious definition of culture, such as those involving ethics, rhetoric, ideology, and ideas. They also say that neo-institutionalism has advanced beyond Max U and Samuelsonian economics. That's also mistaken. They do not attend to the humanities, which as ‘humanomics’ can indeed acknowledge ‘culture’ and non-Max U. Their particular historical examples show the opposite of what they think is shown. Ideas, rhetoric, ethics changed, and had to change, before institutions mattered.

Suggested Citation

  • McCLOSKEY, DEIRDRE NANSEN, 2016. "The humanities are scientific: a reply to the defenses of economic neo-institutionalism," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 63-78, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:12:y:2016:i:01:p:63-78_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137415000430/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maryam Khosravi & Mahmood Yahyazadehfar & Mohsen Alizadeh Sani, 2023. "Economic growth and human capital in Iran: A phenomenological study in a major Central Asian economy," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 645-679, June.
    2. Rok Spruk, 2019. "The rise and fall of Argentina," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 28(1), pages 1-40, December.

    More about this item

    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:cup:jinsec:v:12:y:2016:i:01:p:63-78_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.