IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Economic Crisis, Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics

Listed author(s):
  • Drakopoulos, Stavros A.

The methodological foundations of mainstream economics have been cited as one of the main reasons for its failure to account for the economic crisis of 2008. In spite of this, the status of economic methodology has not been elevated. This is due to the persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. The anti-methodology stance has a long presence as exemplified in Frank Hahn’s (1992) work. After focusing on the debate originating after the publication of Hahn’s arguments, the paper offers a categorization of the main explanations for mainstream methodological aversion. Subsequently, it suggests an explanation based on the role of the physics scientific ideal, arguing that the endeavor to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. The relevant writings of the extremely influential mainstream economists Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, reinforce the assertion that the alleged hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. The paper also calls for a more systematic discussion of this issue, especially in the wake of the line of argument that links the recent failings of mainstream economics to its methodological basis

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: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/74306/1/MPRA_paper_74306.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 74306.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2016
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:74306
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as
in new window


  1. Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "A perspective on psychology and economics," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(4-5), pages 657-685, May.
  2. Hendry, David F., 2000. "Econometrics: Alchemy or Science?: Essays in Econometric Methodology," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198293545, April.
  3. David Colander & Richard Holt & Barkley Rosser, 2004. "The changing face of mainstream economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 485-499.
  4. John B. Davis, 2007. "The turn in economics and the turn in economic methodology," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 275-290.
  5. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, 09.
  6. Beker, Victor A., 2010. "On the economic crisis and the crisis of economics," Economics Discussion Papers 2010-18, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW).
  7. Paul A. Samuelson, 1998. "How Foundations Came to Be," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1375-1386, September.
  8. Mill, John Stuart, 1874. "Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 2, number mill1874.
  9. David Colander, 2010. "The economics profession, the financial crisis, and method," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 419-427.
  10. Salim Rashid, 1994. "John von Neumann, scientific method and empirical economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 279-294.
  11. Debreu, Gerard, 1991. "The Mathematization of Economic Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(1), pages 1-7, March.
  12. D. COLANDER & al., 2010. "The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 6.
  13. Philip Mirowski, 1992. "Do economists suffer from physics envy?," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 61-68, Spring.
  14. Roger E. Backhouse, 2015. "Revisiting Samuelson's Foundations of Economic Analysis," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 53(2), pages 326-350, June.
  15. Stavros Drakopoulos & Ioannis Katselidis, 2015. "From Edgeworth to econophysics: a methodological perspective," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 77-95, March.
  16. Elster Jon, 2009. "Excessive Ambitions," Capitalism and Society, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-33, October.
  17. Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-164, Winter.
  18. Andrew E. Clark & Paul Frijters & Michael A. Shields, 2008. "Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 46(1), pages 95-144, March.
  19. Vinca Bigo & Ioana Negru, 2014. "Mathematical modelling in the wake of the crisis: a blessing or a curse? What does the economics profession say?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 329-347.
  20. Tony Lawson, 1994. "Why are so many economists so opposed to methodology?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(1), pages 105-134.
  21. Hoover, Kevin D, 1995. "Why Does Methodology Matter for Economics? Review Article," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(430), pages 715-734, May.
  22. Tobin, James, 1985. "Neoclassical Theory in America: J. B. Clark and Fisher," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(6), pages 28-38, December.
  23. Mirowski, Philip, 1984. "Physics and the 'Marginalist Revolution.'," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(4), pages 361-379, December.
  24. Roger Backhouse, 2010. "Methodology in action," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 3-15.
  25. Beed, Clive & Kane, Owen, 1991. "What Is the Critique of the Mathematization of Economics?," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 581-612.
  26. Cairnes, John E., 1888. "The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 2, number cairnes1888.
  27. Bruno S. Frey, 2008. "Happiness: A Revolution in Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262062771, July.
  28. Robert Boyer, 2013. "The Present Crisis. A Trump for a Renewed Political Economy," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 1-38, January.
  29. Robert J. Shiller, 2010. "How Should the Financial Crisis Change How We Teach Economics?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 403-409, September.
  30. Jevons, William Stanley, 1871. "The Theory of Political Economy," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number jevons1871.
  31. Turk, Michael H., 2012. "The Mathematical Turn In Economics: Walras, The French Mathematicians, And The Road Not Taken," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(02), pages 149-167, June.
  32. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521415019, Diciembre.
  33. Joanna Dzionek-Kozlowska, 2015. "Economics in times of crisis. In search of a new paradigm in economic sciences," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 9(1), November.
  34. Philip Mirowski, 1992. "What Were von Neumann and Morgenstern Trying to Accomplish?," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 113-147, Supplemen.
  35. Bruce Caldwell, 2013. "Presidential Address — Of Positivism and the History of Economic Thought," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 753-767, April.
  36. Philip Mirowski, 1991. "The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economic Analysis," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 145-157, Winter.
  37. Kevin Hoover, 2010. "Introduction: Methodological implications of the financial crisis," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 397-398.
  38. Bruce J. Caldwell, 1990. "Does methodology matter? : how should it be practiced?," Finnish Economic Papers, Finnish Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 64-71, Spring.
  39. Hausman,Daniel M., 1992. "The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521425230, Diciembre.
  40. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Economic Imperialism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 115(1), pages 99-146.
  41. Steve Keen, 2011. "Debunking Macroeconomics," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 147-168, December.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

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:pra:mprapa:74306. 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: (Joachim Winter)

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.