IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Disciplinary Division within Social Sciences: Methodological Issues in Economic Imperialism and Economic Pluralism

Listed author(s):
  • Fernando Chafim


    (Institute of Economics, University of Campinas)

Registered author(s):

    This paper attempts to shed light on the problematic nature of the ongoing disciplinary division within social sciences. Disciplinary barriers between social disciplines are nonetheless repeatedly challenged by attempts to cross boundaries and hybridization processes. In economics, we can detect two distinct methodological practices – an imperialistic one and a pluralistic one. The former aims at interdisciplinarity in a limited range of hybridization. The latter supports more possibilities, feasible with the evolution of disciplines, but it remains largely mono-disciplinary. In this respect the aims of this paper are twofold: (1) to show that, unlike natural sciences, there are no ontological reasons for disciplinary divisions in the social sciences; and (2) to outline some implications of all this, by contrasting the pluralism project in heterodox economics and the parochial methodology of economic imperialism.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma in its journal History of Economic Ideas.

    Volume (Year): 24 (2016)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 145-164

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:hid:journl:v:24:y:2016:3:7:p:145-164
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hid:journl:v:24:y:2016:3:7:p:145-164. 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: (Mario Aldo Cedrini)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.