Methodology of Economics

Der Beitrag rekonstruiert mittels qualitativer Verfahren die Denk- und Repräsentationsmuster von Wirtschaftswissenschaftler*innen. Ziel des Beitrags ist es, die fachspezifische Einstellung und das allgemeine Wissenschaftsverständnis von deutschen Ökonomen herauszuarbeiten sowie Aussagen über Bedeutung, Relevanz und insbesondere Potentiale qualitativer und auch rekonstruktiver Forschungsmethoden für ökonomische Fragestellungen aufzuzeigen.

El presente documento analiza de manera comparativa las dimensiones epistemológicas de las ciencias físico/naturales –especialmente la física y la biología– y de la economía en sus esfuerzos por estructurar un status de ciencia. Se plantea la tesis de que entre el pensamiento científico –especialmente el emanado de las ciencias físicas– y el pensamiento económico se comparten ciertos criterios epistemológicos en la manera de abordar sus respectivos objetos de estudio, siendo ello uno de los factores por los cuales los debates epistemológicos se convierten en el Talón de Aquiles de la economía. Además, se identifica que pocos son los autores de las ciencias económicas que muestran una preocupación genuina por establecer criterios sólidos y referentes metodológicos que orienten la construcción del conocimiento científico sobre la vida económica; entre estos autores destacan Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Alfred Marshall y Milton Friedman, entre los cuales existen diferencias y matices importantes. Finalmente, se concluye con una serie de preguntas sugestivas relativas a los desafíos teórico/epistemológicos de las ciencias económicas y a la necesidad de trascender las posturas positivistas que históricamente le caracterizan.

In 1964, Buchanan wrote an article in which he criticized the definition of economics given by Robbins in his Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. This article is remarkable because it represents Buchanan's attempts to redefine economics, that is, not only to propose his own definition but also to attack the standard, Robbins, definition of the discipline. More precisely, Buchanan thus offers a catallactic criticism of Robbins' definition. The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss Buchanan's criticism and to show how he organizes the presentation of his own definition.

The present study is an attempt to investigate the resurging evolution of economic thought, which is closely in direction with the eminence of substantive elements of economics. It presupposes that the substantive elements of economics produce a package which 1. includes some epistemic doctrines, including rationality, efficiency, and equilibrium; 2. has dynamic characteristics of economic theories; 3. establishes an obvious interdisciplinary framework and systematic relationships with other social sciences; 4. is compatible with mildness and moderation; 5. entails institutional, social and ethical potentiality; 6. has a pluralistic nature and potential for methodological reforms; and 7. creates an outstanding analytical power through the application of the package in question. Considering the pluralistic nature of conventional economics, it constitutes mainstream and non-mainstream, and neoclassical and non-neoclassical paradigms. The Moreover, neoclassic paradigm includes both orthodox and non-orthodox approaches. The present study examines the efficacy of moderate and non-orthodox paradigms of conventional economics

Sin ánimo de desacreditar o demeritar los esfuerzos realizados en la construcción de la teoría económica, el presente artículo tiene como finalidad desestabilizar la noción del concepto convencional de la economía como ciencia y (de)construirlo hasta trascender a la escasez como objeto de estudio de la misma; así como desentrañar los rasgos y el sentido de la metodología orientada a la construcción del pensamiento científico en las ciencias económicas, con especial énfasis en la epistemología neo/positivista predominante y los paradigmas alternativos al interior de la disciplina. Para cumplir con este propósito es importante recurrir a la historia del pensamiento económico y comprender su accidentada evolución conceptual y epistemológica; al tiempo que se reconoce que la economía no es una ciencia homogénea, aunque sí signada por el predominio de un peculiar enfoque que no solo incide en la academia, sino que también extiende su influencia al diseño de las políticas públicas. En suma, este análisis crítico es una invitación al diálogo entre las ciencias económicas y las ciencias políticas, así como al ejercicio de la interdisciplinariedad en la investigación y la docencia.

The Coase theorem is associated with Stigler because Stigler coined the term. The object of this paper is to show that Stigler's Coase theorem is Stiglerian for deeper – namely, methodological – reasons. We argue that, convinced as he was by the importance of Coase's message, Stigler also believed that this message – such as presented in " The Federal Communications Commission " (1959) or " The Problem of Social Cost " (1962) – was not scientific. Hence, he had to transform it into a theorem to give it a scientific dimension. This is what we try to show by presenting Stigler's methodology and by confronting it to the methodology used in Coase's articles.

The intensive globalization of production at the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century led to a significant distortion of statistical data of the volume of international trade. The usage of these data in quantitative research does not provide reliable information regarding the development potential of a particular export route (orientation) or products. The specific methodological procedure has been proposed in order to correct these data, prior to their application in known econometric models. It includes standard procedures for separation of inter-industry from intra-industry trade, and then the differentiation of horizontal and vertical form of intra-industry exchange. In the last step, the disputed value of exports is identified by marking unusual situation of higher export price of undeveloped economies to the developed ones. This is a result of the multiple crossing of the border of the same products. The obtained corrected value of statistical data can be successfully applied in existing econometric models. The methodological procedure was applied to the selected Serbian export groups of products and several of its key export partner countries. The results show that the statistical value of export is 10% to 40% higher than the real one.

Hangi bilim dalında olursa olsun metodoloji bir araştırmanın temelini oluşturur.  En kısa ve öz bir ifade ile metodoloji herhangi bir konuyu analiz etmek ve problemleri çözmek amacına yönelik bilimsel ve sistematik  yöntem ve yaklaşımlardır. İktisat Metodolojisi için de bu geçerlidir. İktisadın kendisinin bir bilim dalı olup olmadığı tartışmalarını bir tarafa bırakacak olursak iktisat adı verilen akademik disiplin içerisinde de teorik ve sistematik yaklaşımlar ve yöntemler sözkonusudur. Bu yaklaşımların ve yöntemlerin hangisinin doğru olduğu ya da olmadığı iktisat metodolojisinin zorluğuna işaret eder. İktisatçılar arasında hangi yaklaşımların (örneğin, multi-disipliner iktisat, inter-disipliner iktisat, trans-disipliner iktisat vs.) ve hangi yöntemlerin (tümdengelim, tümevarım, a Priori ve a Posteriori, apriorizm karşı ampirizm, gözlem, deney ve saire.) doğru olduğu konusunda bir uzlaşma ve anlaşma maalesef sözkonusu değildir.

İktisat ve Metodoloji (İktisat Biliminde Kapsam, Yöntem ve Sınırlar) başlığını taşıyan bu kitapta yer alan muhtelif makaleler içerisinde metodolojik konular farklı bakış açılarıyla ele alınmaktadır. İktisat metodolojisi konusunu ülkemizde ilk defa ele alan bilim insanlarının başında gelen Prof.Dr.Ömer Demir ve Prof.Dr.Turan Yay katkıları ile bizleri onurlandırmışlardır. Prof.Dr.Serap Durusoy ve Doç.Dr. Özgün Burak Kaymakçı da iktisat metodolojisi alanında çalışmalar yapmış kıymetli bilim insanlarıdır. Bu kitaba yaptıkları katkılar dolayısıyla kendilerine teşekkürlerimizi sunuyoruz.

Bugüne değin genç meslektaşlarımı  daima motive etmek ve çalışma-ya teşvik etmek gayesiyle editörlük görevlerimi gönüllü olarak pay-laştım.  Doç.Dr. Serdar Yay yaklaşık 10 yıldan bu yana inter-disipliner /trans-disipliner araştırmalarıma katkılar sunmuş kıymetli bir araştırmacıdır. Sayın Dr. Serdar Göcen de bu kitaba editör/yazar olarak katkılar sunmuştur.

Rodolfo J. Rodríguez Rodríguez: Fundamentos Epistemológicos de La Economía (Epistemological Foundations of  economics)
Proyecto de investigación sobre los fundamentos ónticos, epistémicos y metodéuticos de las teorías económicas, desde un enfoque tanto genético, como comprensivo-explicativo.  Una aproximación metateórica a los diversos modelos teóricos de explicación en el ámbito económico.  Una arqueología cognitiva,  analizando, explicando y interpretando las capas cognitivas, arrancando en los niveles pragmático-comunicativos,  con el esclarecimiento léxico-semántico de las términos y funciones, tanto téoricas, como no teóricas, de las teorías factuales y su validez interna en los modelos económicos explicativos.  Teniendo como punto de partida el análisis semántico-modular y léxico-semántico de una teoría, se avanza hacia las capas metodéuticas, esto es, sobre odos, métodos y metodología involucradas.  La capa metodéutica se sustenta en estructuras y funciones epistémicas, su consistencia, validez referencial y metacognitiva. Las capas sustentadoras de todo el andamiaje téórico de tales moldeos, tanto comprensivos y explicativos,  son las noéticas (gnoseología) y ónticas (ontología).  Todo ello permite evaluar los rangos de comprensión y  de explicación de los distintos thématas económicos con respecto a los sucesos acontecidos en el contexto de las crisis económicas del siglo XXI,  dando cuenta de sus alcances, limitaciones, desfaces y colapsos teóricos de los mismos.

One major lesson to learn from modern science is the impossibility of perpetual motion. By ignoring this lesson, economic theory is prone to logical inconsistencies, which translate into recurrent market crises and environmental catastrophes.

La teoria della politica economica indica, attraverso modelli matematici, statistici ed econometrici, gli strumenti per la massimizzazione del benessere sociale nelle sue declinazioni di crescita, basic needs e sviluppo umano o per la minimizzazione del malessere sociale nella lotta alla disoccupazione, all’inflazione, alla maldistribuzione del reddito e della ricchezza e all’instabilità finanziaria.
Questa raccolta di studi è divisa in tre parti che si rivolgono: a) alle questioni metodologiche, con riguardo ai limiti, alla sistematica e alle tecniche della politica economica; b) alle istituzioni e alle politiche che hanno guidato l’economia italiana  e il processo di integrazione economica europea e internazionale nel secondo dopoguerra; c)  alle applicazioni della politica economica con riguardo ad alcune sfide antiche, come il dualismo territoriale, e recenti, come la politica monetaria non convenzionale e quelle del debito pubblico e dei trasporti.
Il volume evoca il concetto di frontiera, inteso sia come meta che come  limite attuale, per una disciplina fondamentale, anche se ancora poco presente negli ordinamenti di studio dei paesi anglosassoni.  Essa coniuga le teorie dell’economia politica a quelle della politica economica, entrambe utili per orientare le decisioni di politica, investendo la questione della efficacia o della inefficacia della politica economica per realizzare il sistema economico auspicato dalle istituzioni. Si tratta di individuare limiti, metodi e ruoli specifici della politica economica, da sempre schiacciata tra i modelli teorici e la realizzazione di interventi atti a modificare situazioni economiche ed istituzionali ritenute in contrasto con le esigenze della società civile.  La breve storia della politica economica attiva ha visto formarsi uno iato profondo tra la disciplina intesa in senso tradizionale, che vedeva nel politico il gestore del benessere comune, e la nuova teoria che vede nella economia delle scelte pubbliche un politico interessato soprattutto al benessere di segmenti della società che possono ridursi anche a lui stesso.

The theory of economic policy indicates, through mathematical, statistical and econometric models, the instruments aimed either for the maximization of economic welfare in its declinations of economic growth, basic needs and human development or for the minimization of  social misery, fighting unemployment, inflation, income and wealth maldistributions and financial instability.
This collection of essays is divided into three sections related to: a. the methodological questions related to the research limits of economic policy; b. the institutions and the policies which have guided the Italian economic policy in the second afterwar period and the economic integration process at the European and international levels; c. some economic policy applications related to old challenges, as the territorial economic dualism, and to more recent ones, as  the non conventional monetary policy beside those of public debt and trasports.
This book evokes the concept of fronteer which is to be intended either as aim or as actual limit of a fundamental economic discipline, which is though still little present in the study programs of the English speaking countries. It combines the theories of political economy and those of economic policy, both useful to orientate the policy decisions, since it deals with the debate on the  effectiveness of economic policy in order to obtain the economic system wanted by the institutions.
The brief history of active economic policies has experienced a deep hiatus between the discipline intended in its traditional sense,  where the policy-maker was the manager of the social welfare, and the actual theory, which sees him as a rent-seeker interested, above all, in the welfare of society segments which may reduce even to himself.

Smith's perspective is very similar to the theoretical framework
developed by psychologists, neuroscientists and behavioural economists.
He also envisaged a wide range of estimates of the phenomena of harm
avoidance, will and justice, which are the focus of modern behavioural
economics. Adam Smith; by addressing all individuals' efforts to generate more income and to dominate other individuals from a different
perspective, it refers to the social space as the address where individuals can find their own interests. The purpose of this study is to examine the economic policy origins of behavioural economics and to make a new reading of the parts in relation to individual preference of the Theory of Moral Sentiments from the perspective of behavioural economics. For this purpose, the concept of empathy and the moral philosophy of Smith in the first part of the paper, justice in the second part, factors that cause deviations from rationality in the third part and sentiments and reason are discussed in the last part.

The central argument of this thesis is that Economic Science requires a methodological re-orientation in order to re-align with contemporary philosophy of science.  This is argued with reference to both the history of general philosophy of science - in particular the literatures on scientific explanation and the structure of scientific theories – and the history of the methodology of economics.  It is also argued that the heterodox school of economic thought known as Complexity Economics offers a valid basis for achieving such a reorientation.

Is it possible to be ‘irrational’ without being ‘uneconomic’? What is the link between ‘Value’ and ‘values’? What do economists do when they ‘explain’? We live in times when the economic logic has become unquestionable and all-powerful so that our quotidian economic experiences are defined by their scientific construal. This book is the result of a multifaceted investigation into the nature of knowledge produced by economics, and the construction of the category that is termed ‘economic’ with its implied exclusions. It is an attempt to think economics Otherwise, that is, a questioning of economics as if difference mattered.
Nitasha Kaul re-examines certain understood ways of thinking about economics as a discipline, especially in relation to questions of identity and difference. This book explores the notion that economics is not a timeless, universal, objective science but a changing response to the problems of knowledge and administration. The epistemological inheritance of economics is ‘rooted’ in the enlightenment, and it also inherits the liberal paradoxes of that age. Kaul argues that the juxtaposition of identity with economic (culture/economy) is essential, and can only be achieved by critiquing establishment economists’ discourse on identity, and taking feminist poststructural and postcolonial work seriously. The author challenges the assumption that there is a simple linkage between the category economic, the entity economy and the study of economics. She envisions an economics in the plural: contextual, social, political – econo-mixes.
This book brings together some of the most urgent topics of the day – the power of economics as a discipline, the questions of difference and the politics of identity, and feminist perspectives on this. It will be particularly relevant to heterodox economists, feminist theorists, postcolonial studies scholars, social and cultural theorists, philosophers and history of ideas or intellectual history of thought scholars.

Contents, and part of the Introduction of a collection of Karl Polanyi's writings translated into Italian. Articles and manuscripts of the 1920s and 1930s allow a deeper understanding of Polanyi's view of the "transformation" of the market capitalist society from its liberal to its neo-liberal-corporative institutional setup. Other articles and essays deal with political theory and the comparative analysis of economic systems. The Introduction sketches out a comprehensive outline of Polanyi's thought in its diverse but consistent aspects, with specific reference to the 24 writings of his included in the book.

This  research  study  undertakes  a  rational  reconstruction  of  the  methodological writings of key figures within the emerging school of  thought known as complexity economics.  The reconstruction is  conducted within the framework of mechanistic explanation that has dominated the recent literature in the philosophy of science.  My central  thesis is that complexity economics offers a mechanistic explanatory framework appropriate for the creation, development, and revision of  economic theories.  The study is comprised of three sections.  The first  section surveys the development of models of scientific explanation in the philosophy of science literature, culminating in an endorsement of a  mechanistic account.  The second section shows how the literature on economic  methodology has historically responded to developments  within the philosophy of science, and justifies the need for the analysis
conducted in the following section.  In the final section, I interpret the  methodological writings of complexity economists within the mechanistic framework adopted, to establish the claims of the central thesis.

The books’ goal is to answer the question: Do the weaknesses of value-free economics imply the need for a paradigm shift? The author synthesizes criticisms from different perspectives (descriptive and methodological). Special attention is paid to choices over time, because in this area value-free economics has the most problems. In that context, the enriched concept of multiple self is proposed and investigated. However, it is not enough to present the criticisms towards value-free economics. For scientists, a bad paradigm is better than no paradigm. Therefore, the author considers whether value-based economics with normative approaches such as economics of happiness, capability approach, libertarian paternalism, and the concept of multiple self can be the alternative paradigm for value-free economics. This book is essential reading to everyone interested in the current state of economics as a discipline.

The article reviews the history of ecological economics with the aim to contribute to the current debate on the discipline's methodological pluralism. A historical analysis has shown that ecological economic thought has been a plural intellectual movement that nevertheless counted with a meta-paradigm that united very different values, methods and ideas: a biophysical approach to economic processes, accounting for entropic phenomena, describing economic activity in terms of the flows of energy and materials and addressing the question of the intertemporal allocation of exhaustible resources. However, the foundation of the International Society for Ecological Economics in 1988 was accompanied by a turn in favor of a more radical eclecticism that would lead to a methodological debate calling for a thorough analysis of what would be the benefits and desired limits of methodological pluralism within the discipline.

The scientific methodology of classical physics has been a constant influence in the development of orthodox economics. Clear signs of this can be found in the works of many classical economists such as Smith, Say, Cairnes  and Mill. The physics influence became more apparent with the emergence of marginalism. The economic thought of F. Y. Edgeworth, however, is the peak of the influence of classical physics to economics. In Edgeworth’s Mathematical Psychics, the identification of maximum energy in physics with that of the maximum pleasure in economic calculus, is central in his thought. In the same manner, I. Fisher, the founder of marginalism in the US, promoted a classical physics based economic methodology. The close analogy of physics and economics concepts and the application of tools from hydrodynamics to economic theory, are basic characteristics of his work. These views eventually dominated orthodox economic methodology. The paper argues that, apart from establishing the  physics scientific ideal in economics, both of these authors provided the methodological justification for its adoption in economics. It also  examines their subsequent influence on the formation of the current methodological approach in orthodox economics. In particular, it discusses  their influence on key components of current mainstream economics such as: extensive use of  mathematics, aversion to methodological discourse and anti-psychologism.

RESUMEN Este artículo indaga en qué medida hay una influencia real de la filosofía y metodología de la ciencia de Popper en la metodología de la economía de Blaug. En primer lugar, se analiza el punto de partida del interés de Blaug por la metodología y, en particular, por la filosofía de Popper. En segundo término, se estudian sus ideas sobre el falsacionismo desde una perspectiva sistemática. Por último, se evalúa su metodología en cuanto a si realmente se la puede considerar falsacionista en sentido popperiano.
«The Influence of Karl Popper's Philosophy on Mark Blaug's Methodology of Economics». ABSTRACT: This paper examines whether there is an actual influence of Popper's philosophy and methodology of science on Blaug's methodology of economics. Firstly, it analyses the starting point of Blaug's interest in methodology and specially in Popper's philosophy. Secondly, it studies Blaug's views about falsificationism from a systematic point of view. Finally, it undertakes an assessment of his methodology focusing on whether it could actually be considered falsificationist in a Popperian sense.

The goal of the article is to substantiate that despite the criticism the paradigm in economics will not change because of the axiomatic assumptions of value-free economics. How these assumptions work is demonstrated on the example of Gary Becker's economic approach which is analyzed from the perspective of scientific research programme (Lakatos). The author indicates hard core of economic approach (maximization of utility, instrumental rationality) and the protective belt which makes hard core immune from any criticism. This immunity leads economists to believe that they are objective scientists and, consequently, it results in epistemological hubris. Due to its tautological nature (and other problems), economic approach is considered to be a degenerative programme. This conclusion is extended on value-free economics. In spite of these problems, many economists still believe in positive economics and they dismiss normative approaches. It has a negative influence on people (well-being, choices over time). The conclusion of the article is that thanks to axiomatic assumptions economists do not have objective and ironclad methodology and they should accept normative values in their research.