Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T03:52:51.453Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conventionalism and Economic Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Lawrence A. Boland
Lawrence A. Boland*
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Roughly speaking all economists can be divided into two groups—those who agree with Milton Friedman and those who do not. Both groups, however, espouse the view that science is a series of approximations to a demonstrated accord with reality. Methodological controversy in economics is now merely a Conventionalist argument over which comes first—simplicity or generality. Furthermore, this controversy in its current form is not compatible with one important new and up and coming economic (welfare) theory called “the theory of the Second Best.” In this paper I offer a Second Best meta-theory that says that (1) any compromise between simplicity and generality must yield a theory which is “third best” by these Conventionalist criteria; and (2) there exists a better way than a compromise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 239 - 248
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank Joseph Agassi (Boston University) for his help in the writing of an earlier version of this paper.

References

[1] Agassi, Joseph, “Sensationalism,” Mind, vol. 75, 1966.Google Scholar
[2] Agassi, Joseph, Towards an Historiography of Science, History and Theory, Mouton, The Hague, 1963.Google Scholar
[3] Archibald, G. C., “Chamberlin versus Chicago,” Review of Economic Studies, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Bohm, P., “On the Theory of ‘Second Best’,” Review of Economic Studies, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Bronfenbrenner, M., “A ‘Middlebrow’ Introduction to Economic Methodology,” in The Structure of Economic Science (ed. S. R. Krupp).Google Scholar
[6] Chamberlin, E. H., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Harvard University Press, 1933.Google Scholar
[7] Friedman, Milton, Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press, 1953.Google Scholar
[8] Hicks, J. R., Value and Capital, Oxford, 1939.Google Scholar
[9] Keynes, J. M., General Theory, Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1936.Google Scholar
[10] Lipsey, R. G., and Lancaster, K. J., “The General Theory of Second Best,” Review of Economic Studies, 1956-57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Meade, J. E., Trade and Welfare, Oxford, 1955.Google Scholar
[12] Mishan, E. J., “Survey of Welfare Economics,” Economic Journal, vol. 70, 1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Popper, K., The Logic of Scientific Discovery, London, 1959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Robinson, J., Economic Philosophy, Watts, London, 1962.Google Scholar
[15] Robinson, J., Economics of Imperfect Competition, Macmillan, London, 1933.Google Scholar
[16] Rotwein, E., “Mathematical Economics: The Empirical View and an Appeal for Pluralism,” in The Structure of Economic Science: Essays on Methodology (ed. S. R. Krupp), Prentice Hall, 1966.Google Scholar
[17] Samuelson, P., “Economic Theory and Mathematics—an Appraisal,” American Economic Review, vol. 42, 1952.Google Scholar
[18] Samuelson, P., “Problems of Methodology—Discussion,” American Economic Review, Proc. vol. 53, 1963.Google Scholar
[19] Samuelson, P., “Professor Samuelson on Theory and Realism: Reply,” American Economic Review, vol. 55, 1965.Google Scholar
[20] Samuelson, P., “Monopolistic Competition Revolution,” in Monopolistic Competition Theory: Studies in Impact (ed. Kuenne, R.), John Wiley, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[21] Samuelson, P., “Theory and Realism: A Reply,” American Economic Review, vol. 54, 1964.Google Scholar
[22] Stigler, G., Five Lectures on Economic Problems, Macmillan, 1949.Google Scholar
[23] Stigler, G. “Archibald vs. Chicago,” Review of Economic Studies, vol. 30, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar