Relativism: all theories put forth in past are mere reflections of their contemporary history
No objective “right or wrong,” no need for internal consistency, generalizability
Test: do they accurately reflect their time?
Gustav von Schmoller
1838-1917
German Historical School
Opposition to (British) Classical economists; rising German (Prussian) nationalism
Karl Marx
1818-1883
Marxist historiography: history is material class struggles
Thinkers are the product of their “(false) class consciousness”
Absolutism: there exists some objective correct theory
Each historical theory correctly or incorrectly describes some part of it
Can compare historical theories as better or worse
Absolutist mutation of Whig history: history is an inexorable climb towards progress (liberty, enlightenment, truth, liberal democracy, etc.)
The past is always more barbaric, more ignorant, and worse than the present (“The Dark Ages”)
The present (and future) is as close to ideal and will keep getting better
Orthodox: the mainstream† and generally accepted consensus views
Heterodox: competing schools of thought that diverge from orthodoxy (but often still agree with some of its core tenets)
Note: “Mainline” economics (last class) fits both from time to time!
† Not just the Top 5 here!
Neoclassical microeconomics; general equilibrium
Macroeconomics: dynamic stochastic general equilibrium, New Keynesianism
Mathematical formalism, empirical conometric testing
Taught in undergraduate economics education
Cutting edge of research in Top 5 journals/departments influences future orthodoxy
Critical of orthodoxy in some way; focuses on questions that orthodoxy ignores
Sometimes fuse into part of mainstream
Common critiques of neoclassical assumptions (rationality, perfect competition, perfect information)
Examples: Post-Keynesian macro, Institutional, Austrian, feminist, ecological, Marxist economics
“[History of economic thought] shows [heterodox economists’] history and demonstrates that they are not simply malcontents but are the carriers of traditions that the modern mainstream has lost. For example, heterodox economists have often ventured beyond the boundaries of orthodox economic theory into a no man’s land among economics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, political science, history, and ethics. Modern economics is only now beginning to see the need to do that. Whereas modern orthodox theorists have largely focused on the four problems of allocation, distribution, stability, and growth, heterodox economists have studied the forces that produce changes in the society and economy...Often what orthodox writers take as given, heterodox writers try to explain; and what heterodox writers take as given, orthodox economists try to explain. Thus, the differences between heterodox and orthodox economists are often differences in focus, not diametrically opposed theories,” (pp.5-6).
“Nonmainstream schools play important roles in the evolution of a discipline: they pollinate the mainstream view and keep it honest by pointing out its shortcomings or inconsistencies,” (p.7).
Landreth, Harry and David Colander, 1996, The History of Economic Thought, 4th ed.
August Comte
1798-1857
Positivism: knowledge is derived (only) from quantifiable empirical evidence
Society and physical world operate under discoverable empirical & experimental laws
"The law is this: that each of our leading conceptions [of both mind and society] – each branch of our knowledge – passes successively through three different theoretical conditions: the Theological, or fictitious; the Metaphysical, or abstract; and the Scientific, or positive."
Comte, Auguste, 1830-1842, Course of Positive Philosophy
“The meaning of a method is the method of its verification.” – Moritz Schlick
“If you cannot predict, you have not explained.” – Carl Hempel
"The Vienna Circle"
Karl Popper
1902-1994
Two problems of science:
Popper's answer to both is falsifiability
“statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations,” (p.39)
Popper, Karl, 1934, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959 English translation)
A scientific proposition is capable of being falsified
A hypothesis can be corroborated with evidence, but never proven
Example: “all swans are white” is a testable hypothesis, rejected upon discovery of a black swan
Science is an endless sequence of conjectures and refutations
Sir Ronald A. Fisher
1890-1962
"The null hypothesis is never proved or established, but is possibly disproved, in the course of experimentation. Every experiment may be said to exist only in order to give the facts a chance of disproving the null hypothesis."
Fisher, R. A., 1931, The Design of Experiments
Thomas Kuhn
1798-1857
Science has a non-linear history; research is driven by paradigms
"Normal Science": researchers working within an established paradigm
Anomalies & problems accumulate that the standard paradigm can't account for
Kuhn, Thomas, 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas Kuhn
1798-1857
When the established paradigm reaches a crisis, a paradigm shift
New paradigm with different assumptions, theory, and framework than prior
Famous examples:
Kuhn, Thomas, 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas Kuhn
1798-1857
Different paradigms are incommensurable - can neither prove or disprove one paradigm with another's rules
No neutral or objective language to compare paradigms...scientists "talking past one another"
Kuhn, Thomas, 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas Kuhn
1798-1857
Examples in economics (?)
Classical economics → marginalist revolution
Classical macroeconomics → Keynesian revolution → counterrevolution
Kuhn, Thomas, 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Imre Lakatos
1922-1974
Balance Popperian falsificationism & Kuhnian revolutions
A scientific research programme (SRP) based on a “hard core” of assumptions (unchallengeable without abandoning programme)
"It is not that we propose a theory and Nature may shout NO; rather, we propose a maze of theories, and nature may shout INCONSISTENT," (p.30)
Lakatos, Imre, 1970, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge
Imre Lakatos
1922-1974
Progressive research programme: productive, expanding its explanatory and predictive power into new domains without threatening its hard core
Degenerative research programme: losing explanatory power and having to adjust theory to protect hard core from threatening evidence
Multiple research programmes coexist at any time and compete to be the most progressive
Lakatos, Imre, 1970, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge
Imre Lakatos
1922-1974
Example in economics (?)
Lakatos, Imre, 1970, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes," in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge
(Lord) Lionel Robbins
1898-1984
“Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses” (p.15)
Robbins, Lionel, 1932, Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science
As economists, we can't run experiments to falsify our theories
Society is not our laboratory (probably a good thing!)
Some exceptions:
Epistemology: the (philosophical) study of knowledge and what we can know
Two common sources of knowledge:
How do you learn (or teach) economics?
“The law of demand”
“Sometimes, certain very sophisticated statistical tests of the law [of demand] in which every allowance has been made for bias and incompleteness, have resulted, after a good deal of handwringing and computer-squeezing, in the diagonal elements of certain matrices being negative at the 5 percent level of significance. And sometimes they have not. Even the inventors of fully identified, complete systems of demand equations...have no great confidence in the results. A shift of one metaphor here, a shift of one appeal to authority there, and the “proof” would be valid no longer,” (McCloskey 1998, 24).
Modern economists use fictional constructions to logically examine consequences
Very different from other sciences
“All models lie. The art is telling useful lies.” - George Box
Many have accused economists of suffering from “physics envy”
1870s+ neoclassical economics bases models on 300-year old physics
Economics as third-rate applied mathematics
Modern economics has done better, uses fancier mathematics
Micro: set theory, topology, real analysis
Macro: dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models, chaos theory
Econometric causal inference techniques since “credibility revolution” (1990s) are cutting edge!
Milton Friedman
1912-2016
Economics Nobel 1976
“The ultimate goal of a positive science is the development of a “theory” or, “hypothesis” that yields valid and meaningful (i.e., not truistic) predictions about phenomena not yet observed. ” (p.7)
“Viewed as a body of substantive hypotheses, theory is to be judged by its predictive power for the class of phenomena which it isintended to “explain.”...Factual evidence can never “prove” a hypothesis; it can only fail to disprove it, which is what we generally mean when we say, somewhat inexactly, that the hypothesis hasbeen “confirmed” by experience.” (p.8)
Friedman, Milton, 1953, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics
Milton Friedman
1912-2016
Economics Nobel 1976
“The choice among alternative hypotheses equally consistent with the available evidence must to some extent be arbitrary, though there is general agreement that relevant considerations are suggested by the criteria “simplicity” and “fruitfulness,” themselves notions that defy completely objective specification. A theory is “simpler” the less the initial knowledge needed to make a prediction within a given field of phenomena; it is more “fruitful” the more precise the resulting prediction, the wider the area within which the theory yields predictions, and the more additional lines for further research it suggests.” (p.10)
Friedman, Milton, 1953, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics
Milton Friedman
1912-2016
Economics Nobel 1976
“Truly important and significant hypotheses will be found to have “assumptions” that are wildly inaccurate descriptive representations of reality, and, in general, the more significant the theory, the more unrealistic the assumptions (in this sense). The reason is simple. A hypothesis is important if it “explains” much by little, that is, if it abstract the common and crucial elements from the mass of complex and detailed circumstances surrounding the phenomena to be explained and permits valid predictions on the basis of them alone. To be important, therefore, a hypothesis must be descriptively false in its assumptions.” (pp.14-15)
Friedman, Milton, 1953, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics
Milton Friedman
1912-2016
Economics Nobel 1976
"To put this point less paradoxically, the relevant question to ask about the “assumptions” of a theory is not whether they are descriptively “realistic,” for they never are, but whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand,” (p.16)
Friedman, Milton, 1953, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Essays in Positive Economics
Positive economics: descriptive statements about the world or consequences of actions
Normative economics: prescriptions about what “we ought to do”
(Lord) Lionel Robbins
1898-1984
“Economics is entirely neutral between ends;...in so far as any end is dependent on scarce means, it is germane to the preoccupations of the economist” (p.24)
“Economics as science is about ‘ascertainable facts’ of the positive as distinct from normative (ethical) judgments on economic policy” (p.24)
Robbins, Lionel, 1932, Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science
Historical writers wrote on political subjects, judged actions of State, advocated policies
Economists today recommend policy to policymakers
What is the role of the economist?
What values (if any) does economics promote?
“In the first half of the 19th century, economics itself was regarded as an investigation of ‘the nature and causes of the wealth of nations’ (Smith), ‘the laws which regulate the distribution of the produce of the earth’ (Ricardo), and ‘the laws of motion of capitalism’ (Marx). After 1870, however, economics came to be regarded as a science that analyzed ‘human behaviour as a relationship between given ends and scarce means which have alternative uses’- an apt definition formulated in 1932 by Robbins, which, if taken strictly, would deny that much of what had gone before was economics. After two centuries of being concerned with the growth of resources and the rise of wants, economics after 1870 became largely a study of the principles that govern the efficient allocation of resources when both resources and wants are given. Classical economic theory was as much macro as microeconomics; neoclassical theory was nothing but microeconomics; macroeconomics came back into its own with Keynes and for a decade or so virtually replaced microeconomics.”
Blaug, Mark, 1996, Economic Theory in Retrospect, p.4
Keyboard shortcuts
↑, ←, Pg Up, k | Go to previous slide |
↓, →, Pg Dn, Space, j | Go to next slide |
Home | Go to first slide |
End | Go to last slide |
Number + Return | Go to specific slide |
b / m / f | Toggle blackout / mirrored / fullscreen mode |
c | Clone slideshow |
p | Toggle presenter mode |
t | Restart the presentation timer |
?, h | Toggle this help |
Esc | Back to slideshow |