IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nea/journl/y2024i63p193-210.html

Economic science: The challenge of fragmentation

Author

Listed:
  • Ananyin, O.

    (HSE University, Moscow, Russia
    The Institute of Economics RAS, Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

Segmentation of economic knowledge tends to transform into its fragmentation and becomes an obstacle for the development of science: it bounds its innovative potential, weakens the connection with practice, and reduces the public authority of economic theory. Hopes for overcoming this trend are often associated with the generality of analytical tools in most social sciences. The paper substantiates the position that the problem of knowledge fragmentation is primarily a problem of barriers between subject areas, while instrumental integration can only facilitate such interactions, but cannot serve a response to the challenge of fragmentation. An alternative strategy is analyzed, it implies an increase in the complexity of knowledge structure, primarily through the development of partial ontologies and "grand theories", providing prerequisites for effective interdisciplinary interactions in the social sciences and intra-disciplinary contacts between the schools within economic science based on different basic ontologies. Specific measures to improve economic education programs aimed at training economists open to interdisciplinary contacts and capable of cooperative work in interdisciplinary teams are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ananyin, O., 2024. "Economic science: The challenge of fragmentation," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 193-210.
    • Handle: RePEc:nea:journl:y:2024:i:63:p:193-210
    DOI: 10.31737/22212264_2024_2_193-210
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econorus.org/repec/journl/2024-63-193-210r.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31737/22212264_2024_2_193-210?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michel De Vroey & Luca Pensieroso, 2016. "The Rise of a Mainstream in Economics," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2016026, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    2. Michel De Vroey & Luca Pensieroso, 2021. "Grounded in Methodology, Certified by Journals: The Rise and Evolution of a Mainstream in Economics," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2021015, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    3. Paul Hoyningen-Huene & Harold Kincaid, 2023. "What makes economics special: orientational paradigms," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 188-202, April.
    4. Angela Ambrosino & Mario Cedrini & John B Davis, 2021. "The unity of science and the disunity of economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 45(4), pages 631-654.
    5. Robert J. Shiller & Virginia M. Shiller, 2011. "Economists as Worldly Philosophers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(3), pages 171-175, May.
    6. Magda Fontana, 2010. "The Santa Fe Perspective on economics: emerging patterns in the science of complexity," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(2), pages 167-196.
    7. Su, Huei-Chun & Colander, David, 2021. "The Economist As Scientist, Engineer, Or Plumber?," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 297-312, June.
    8. Heiner, Ronald A, 1983. "The Origin of Predictable Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(4), pages 560-595, September.
    9. David Colander, 2018. "The Death Of Neoclassical Economics," Chapters, in: How Economics Should Be Done, chapter 5, pages 46-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    10. David Colander, 2000. "New Millennium Economics: How Did It Get This Way, and What Way Is It?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 121-132, Winter.
    11. L. A. Tutov & A. E. Shastitko, 2021. "Metalanguage within disciplinary discourse for scientific research programs: Invitation to a debate," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 4.
    12. Mario Cedrini & Magda Fontana, 2018. "Just another niche in the wall? How specialization is changing the face of mainstream economics [Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences]," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 42(2), pages 427-451.
    13. Pencavel, John, 1991. "Prospects for Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(404), pages 81-87, January.
    14. Shastitko, Andrey & Golovanova, Svetlana, 2016. "Meeting blindly… Is Austrian economics useful for dynamic capabilities theory?," Russian Journal of Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 86-110.
    15. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    16. John B. Davis, 2019. "Specialization, fragmentation, and pluralism in economics," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 271-293, March.
    17. A. A. Auzan & A. A. Maltsev & A. A. Kurdin, 2023. "Russian economic education: Image of the near future," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, issue 10.
    18. David Colander, 2014. "The Wrong Type of Pluralism: Toward a Transdisciplinary Social Science," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 516-525, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Angela Ambrosino & Mario Cedrini & John B. Davis, 2024. "Today’s economics: one, no one and one hundred thousand," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(1), pages 59-76, January.
    2. Sheila C. Dow, 2012. "Variety of Methodological Approach in Economics," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Foundations for New Economic Thinking, chapter 13, pages 210-230, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. Sergio Mariotti, 2022. "The economics–engineering nexus: response to the commentaries," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 49(1), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Muriel Dal-Pont Legrand & Alexandre Truc, 2022. "Agent-Based Models: impact and interdisciplinary influences in economics," Working Papers halshs-04832295, HAL.
    5. Valentina Erasmo, 2022. "“Econosophy”: Venturing a Transdisciplinary Approach to Philosophy and Economics," Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Economics, History and Political Science, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Torino (Italy), vol. 56(2), pages 127-144, December.
    6. Andrea Salanti, 2020. "All That Glitters Is Not Gold: The Case of Mainstream Pluralism," Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Economics, History and Political Science, Fondazione Luigi Einaudi, Torino (Italy), vol. 54(2), pages 287-310, December.
    7. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Leone Sciabolazza, Valerio & Souza, Daniel, 2022. "The interdisciplinarity dilemma: Public versus private interests," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    8. Godwin Chukwudum Nwaobi, 2002. "The Economics Profession in the 21st. Century: Theory Practice and Prospects," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 5(1), May.
    9. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    10. Cedrini, Mario & Fontana, Magda, 2015. "Mainstreaming. Reflections on the Origins and Fate of Mainstream Pluralism," CESMEP Working Papers 201501, University of Turin.
    11. Michel De Vroey & Luca Pensieroso, 2021. "Grounded in Methodology, Certified by Journals: The Rise and Evolution of a Mainstream in Economics," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2021015, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    12. Mario Cedrini & Magda Fontana, 2018. "Just another niche in the wall? How specialization is changing the face of mainstream economics [Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences]," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 42(2), pages 427-451.
    13. Claudius Gräbner & Birte Strunk, 2020. "Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(4), pages 311-329, October.
    14. Laura Barbieri & Daniela Bragoli & Flavia Cortelezzi & Giovanni Marseguerra, 2015. "Public Support to Innovation Strategies," DISCE - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali dises1509, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE).
    15. Lutz Bornmann & Russell J. Funk, 2025. "Popper’s probability calculus and the decline of scientific disruptiveness," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(8), pages 4801-4807, August.
    16. Peter Wheale & David Hinton, 2007. "Ethical consumers in search of markets," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 302-315, May.
    17. Hussinger, Katrin & Pellens, Maikel, 2019. "Guilt by association: How scientific misconduct harms prior collaborators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 516-530.
    18. Naudé, Wim & Nagler, Paula, 2022. "The Ossified Economy: The Case of Germany, 1870-2020," IZA Discussion Papers 15607, IZA Network @ LISER.
    19. Christoph Engel, 2006. "The Difficult Reception of Rigorous Descriptive Social Science in the Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2006_1, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    20. Yann Giraud, 2017. "The Contestable Marketplace of Ideas: Paul Samuelson’s Defense of Mainstream Economics through Textbook Making, 1967-1976," Thema Working Papers 2017-19, THEMA (Théorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), CY Cergy-Paris University, ESSEC and CNRS.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • 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:nea:journl:y:2024:i:63:p:193-210. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alexey Tcharykov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nearuea.html .

    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.