IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Stephen Parsons' Philosophical Critique of Transcendental Realism


  • Jochen Runde


This paper replies to Stephen Parsons' critique of Tony Lawson's Economics and Reality recently published in this journal. The topics addressed include Lawson's critique of empirical realism; Lawson's definition of 'structures'; theories of truth; the relationship between mainstream economics and empirical realism; and the possibility of naturalism .

Suggested Citation

  • Jochen Runde, 2001. "On Stephen Parsons' Philosophical Critique of Transcendental Realism," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 101-114.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:13:y:2001:i:1:p:101-114
    DOI: 10.1080/09538250150210621

    Download full text from publisher

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

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Tony Lawson, 1997. "Critical Issues in Economics as Realist Social Theory," Ekonomia, Cyprus Economic Society and University of Cyprus, vol. 1(2), pages 75-117, Winter.
    2. Runde, Jochen, 1998. "Assessing Causal Economic Explanations," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(2), pages 151-172, April.
    3. Stephen Parsons, 1999. "Economics and Reality: A philosophical critique of transcendental realism," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 455-466.
    4. Stephen D. Parsons, 1996. "Post Keynesian Realism and Keynes’ General Theory," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 419-441, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Stephen Parsons, 2001. "A Response to the Claim 'There is no Problem for Transcendental Realism Here'," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(1), pages 115-123.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:taf:revpoe:v:13:y:2001:i:1:p:101-114. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: .

    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.