IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/copoec/v26y2007i1p1-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mathematical Needs and Economic Interpretations

Author

Listed:
  • Miguel A. Duran

Abstract

This paper aims at showing that the disconnection between formal structures and theoretical content in economic model building could lead to undesirable consequences. In this sense, linking formal and verbal contents by means of coherent and relevant interpretations is worth the effort. For it is a relatively simple way of helping to improve the usefulness of mathematical economic theorization. By way of illustration of these ideas, the paper discusses the interpretation which Arrow and Debreu themselves put on the inclusion of free goods in their proof of existence of a general equilibrium.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Miguel A. Duran, 2007. "Mathematical Needs and Economic Interpretations," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:copoec:v:26:y:2007:i:1:p:1-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cpe/bzm014
    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 below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Debreu, Gerard, 1986. "Theoretical Models: Mathematical Forms and Economic Content," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(6), pages 1259-1270, November.
    2. Paul Davidson, 2003. "Is "mathematical science" an oxymoron when used to describe economics?," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 527-545.
    3. Douglas W. Hands, 1984. "The Role of Crucial Counterexamples in the Growth of Economic Knowledge: Two Case Studies in the Recent History of Economic Thought," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 59-67, Spring.
    4. Sheila C. Dow, 2003. "Understanding the relationship between mathematics and economics," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 547-560.
    5. Davis, John B, 1999. "Common Sense: A Middle Way between Formalism and Post-Structuralism?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 23(4), pages 503-515, July.
    6. Debreu, Gerard, 1991. "The Mathematization of Economic Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 1-7, March.
    7. Roger E. Backhouse & John Creedy (ed.), 1999. "From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1824.
    8. Chick, Victoria & Dow, Sheila C, 2001. "Formalism, Logic and Reality: A Keynesian Analysis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 25(6), pages 705-721, November.
    9. Comim, Flavio, 2000. "The Santa Fe approach to complexity: a Marshallian evaluation," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-2), pages 25-43, July.
    10. Chick, Victoria, 1998. "On Knowing One's Place: The Role of Formalism in Economics," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1859-1869, November.
    11. Gerard Debreu, 1956. "Market Equilibrium," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 10, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    12. Donald W. Katzner, 2003. "Why mathematics in economics?," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 561-574.
    13. Backhouse, Roger E, 1998. "If Mathematics Is Informal, Then Perhaps We Should Accept That Economics Must Be Informal Too," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(451), pages 1848-1858, November.
    14. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, December.
    15. Donald W. Katzner, 2002. "What are the questions?," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 51-68.
    16. Hart, Oliver D. & Kuhn, Harold W., 1975. "A proof of the existence of equilibrium without the free disposal assumption," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 335-343, December.
    17. Creedy, John, 2002. "Adam Smith and All That," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 479-489, December.
    18. Bergstrom, Theodore C., 1976. "How to discard `free disposability' - at no cost," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 131-134, July.
    19. Coddington, Alan, 1975. "The Rationale of General Equilibrium Theory," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 13(4), pages 539-558, December.
    20. Roger E. Backhouse, 1997. "Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 766.
    21. Coates,John, 1996. "The Claims of Common Sense," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521412568.
    22. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, December.
    23. Flavio Comim, 2002. "The Scottish Tradition in Economics and the Role of Common Sense in Adam Smith's Thought," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 91-114.
    24. Leontief, Wassily, 1971. "Theoretical Assumptions and Nonobserved Facts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 1-7, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sheila Dow, 2009. "History of Thought and Methodology in Pluralist Economics Education," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 8(2), pages 41-57.

    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. Turan Yay & Huseyin Tastan, 2010. "Invisible Hand in the Process of Making Economics or on the Method and Scope of Economics," Panoeconomicus, Savez ekonomista Vojvodine, Novi Sad, Serbia, vol. 57(1), pages 61-83, March.
    2. Thomas Mayer, 2006. "The Empirical Significance of Econometric Models," Working Papers 620, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    3. Philip R. P. Coelho & James E. McClure, 2008. "The Market for Lemmas: Evidence That Complex Models Rarely Operate in Our World," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 5(1), pages 78-90, January.
    4. Francesco Guala & Andrea Salanti, 2002. "On the Robustness of Economic Models," Working Papers (-2012) 0208, University of Bergamo, Department of Economics.
    5. Marcel Boumans & Mary Morgan, 2002. "Ceteris paribus conditions: materiality and the application of economic theories," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 11-26.
    6. Eduardo Strachman & Jos Ricardo Fucidji, 2012. "The Current Financial And Economic Crisis Empirical And Methodological Issues," Journal of Advanced Studies in Finance, ASERS Publishing, vol. 3(1), pages 95-109.
    7. Roger Backhouse & Mary Morgan, 2001. "Introduction: is data mining a methodological problem?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 171-181.
    8. 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.
    9. Roger Backhouse & Andrea Salanti, 1999. "The methodology of macroeconomics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 159-169.
    10. Espinosa, Miguel & Rondon, Carlos & Romero, Mauricio, 2012. "The use of mathematics in economics and its effect on a scholar's academic career," MPRA Paper 41341, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Stavros, Drakopoulos, 2021. "The Relation of Neoclassical Economics to other Disciplines: The case of Physics and Psychology," MPRA Paper 106597, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Nuno Ornelas Martins, 2012. "Mathematics, Science and the Cambridge Tradition," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(2), pages 1-2, December.
    13. Kakarot-Handtke, Egmont, 2012. "The rhetoric of failure: a hyper-dialog about method in economics and how to get things going," MPRA Paper 43276, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. 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.
    15. Stavros A. Drakopoulos & Anastassios D. Karayiannis, 2005. "A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian «Explanations» in Economics," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 13(2), pages 51-73.
    16. Pillai N., Vijayamohanan, 2008. "In Quest of Truth: The War of Methods in Economics," MPRA Paper 8866, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Roger E. Backhouse & Steven N. Durlauf, 2009. "Robbins on Economic Generalizations and Reality in the Light of Modern Econometrics," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 76(s1), pages 873-890, October.
    18. T.A. Boylan & P.F. O'Gorman, 2007. "Axiomatization And Formalism In Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 426-446, July.
    19. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    20. Kevin D. Hoover, 2016. "The Crisis in Economic Theory: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(4), pages 1350-1361, 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:oup:copoec:v:26:y:2007:i:1:p:1-16. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cpe .

    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.