Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T20:30:18.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Philosophy and Economic Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Daniel M Hausman
Daniel M Hausman*
Affiliation:
Carnegie-Mellon University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most methodological writing on economics is by economists. Although the bulk is produced by lesser members of the profession, almost all leading economists have at one time or another tried their hand at methodological reflection. The results are usually poor. If one read only their methodology, one would have a hard time understanding how Milton Friedman or Paul Samuelson could possibly win Nobel Prizes. It thus is less surprising that the economics profession professes such scorn for philosophizing than that its members spend so much of their time doing it.

Methodological reflections on economics pose other puzzles, too. Although this literature is heavily influenced by philosophy—both current and, especially, out-dated—, it is cut off from philosophical discourse. This quasi-autonomy is puzzling, since this literature is concerned with questions that appear to be instances of, if not the same as the questions with which philosophers of science are concerned.

Type
Part V. Invited Paper: Economics
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1984 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1984 , 1984 , pp. 230 - 249
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 by 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

A discussion with Larry Laudan and Gary Downing was instrumental in making me realize the point I try to argue in this paper. Comments and suggestions from Clark Glymour, Frederick Lee, Michael McPherson; Paul Thagard and the audience in Chicago were also extremely helpful.

References

Archibald, G (1961). “Chamberlin versus Chicago.” Review of Economic Studies 29: 2-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bear, D and Orr, D (1967). “Logic and Expediency in Economic Theorizing.” Journal of Political Economy 75: 188-196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G (1981). A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, H (1976). “Kuhn versus Lakatos or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics.” In Method and Appraisal In Economics. Edited by Spiro Latsis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 149-180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, H (1980a). A Methodological Appraisal of Marxian Economics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Blaug, H (1980b). The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blinder, A (1974). “The Economics of Brushing Teeth.” Journal of Political Economy 82: 887-891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, L (1979a). “A Critique of Friedman's Critics.” Journal of Economic Literature 17: 503-522.Google Scholar
Boland, L (1979b). “Knowledge and the Role of Institutions in Economic Theory.” Journal of Economic Issues 13: 957-972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, L (1982). The Foundations of Economic Method. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Bray, J (1977). “The Logic of Scientific Method in Economics.” Journal of Economic Studies 4: 1-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbreaner, M (1966). “A ‘Middlebrow’ Introduction to Economic Methodology.” In The Struoture of Eoonomlo Science. Edited by S, Krupp. New York: Prentice-Hall. Pages 5-24.Google Scholar
Bronfenbreaner, M (1970). “Radical Economics in America: A 1970 Survey.” Journal of Eoonnmic literature 8: 747-766.Google Scholar
Brunner, K (1969). “'Assumptions’ and the Cognitive Quality of Theories.” Synthese 20: 501-525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, B (1982). Beyond Positivism: Eoonomlo Methodology In the Twentieth Century. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Coddington, A (1972). “Positive Economics.” Canadian Journal of Economics 5: 1-15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cyert, R and Grunberg, E (1963). “Assumption, Prediction and Explanation in Economics.” In Cyert and March (1963). Pages 298-311.Google Scholar
Cyert, R and March, J (eds.). (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Dyke, C (1981). Philosophy of Economics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fair, R (1978). “A Theory of Extramarital Affairs.” Journal of Political Economy 86: 45-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M (1953). “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pages 3-43.Google Scholar
Hahn, F and Hollis, M (1979). Philosophy and Economic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press:.Google Scholar
Hausman, D (1980). “How to Do Philosophy of Economics.” In PSA 1980, Volume 1. Edited by Asquith, P.D and Giere, R.N. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 353-362.Google Scholar
Hausman, D (1981a). Capital, Profits and Prices: An Essay in the Philosophy of Economics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D (1981b). “John Stuart Mill's Philosophy of Economics.” Philosophy of Science 48: 363-385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. (ed.). (1984). The Philosophy of Economics: Anthology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hollis, M and Nell, E (1975). Rational Economic Man: A Philosophical Critique of Neo-Classical Economics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, T (1938). The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. London: Macmillan and Co. (As reprinted with a new preface. New York: A.M. Kelley, 1960.)Google Scholar
Hutchison, T (1956). “Professor Machlup on Verification in Economics.” Southern Economic Journal 22: 476-483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, T (1977). Knowledge and Ignorance in Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hutchison, T (1978). On Revolutions and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchison, T (1981). The Politics and Philosophy of Economics: Marxians Kevnesians and Austrians. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher.Google Scholar
Jones, E (1977). “Positive Economics or What?” Economic Record 53: 350-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katouzian, H (1980). Ideology and Method In Economics. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J.N (1890). Scope and Method of Political Economy. London: Macmillan and Co. (As reprinted New York: Kelley and Hlllman, Inc., 1955.Google Scholar
Knight, F (1935). The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays. New York and London: Harper and Brothers.Google Scholar
Knight, F (1940). “What is ‘Truth’ in Economics?” Journal of Political Economy 48: 1-32. (As reprinted in On the History and Method of Economics. Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 1956. Pages 151-178.)Google Scholar
Knight, F (1941). “The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory: A Rejoinder.” Journal of Political Economy 49: 750-753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopinans, T (1956). Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T (1970). The Struoture of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Latsis, S. (ed.). (1976). Method and Appraisal In Economics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, R.A (1946). “Shortcomings of Marginal Analysis for Hage- Employment Problems.” American Economic Review 36: 62-82.Google Scholar
Lester, R.A (1947). “Marginal, Minimum Wages, and Labor Markets.” American Economic Review 37: 135-148.Google Scholar
Machlup, F (1946). “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research.” American Economic Review 36: 519-554.Google Scholar
Machlup, F (1947). “Rejoinder to an Antimarglnalist.” American Eoonomio Review 37: 148-154.Google Scholar
Machlup, F (1955). “The Problem of Verification in Economics.” Southern Economic Journal 22: 1-21 .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machlup, F (1956). “Rejoinder to a Reluctant Ultra-Empiricist.” Southern Economic Journal 22: 483-493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machlup, F (1960). “Operational Concepts and Mental Cnstructs in Model and Theory Formation.” Giornale Degli Economisti 19: 553-582.Google Scholar
Machlup, F (1978). Methodology of Economics and other Social Sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, J (1974). The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marr, W and Raj, B (eds.). (1983). How Economists Explain: A Reader In Methodology. Landham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D (1983). “The Rhetoric of Economics.” Journal of Literature 21: 481-517.Google Scholar
Melltz, J (1965). “Friedman and Machlup on the Significance of Testing Economic Assumptions.;” Journal of Political Economy 73: 37-60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S (1836). “On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It.” London and westminster Review IV and XXVI: 1-29. (As reprinted in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume 4. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1967. Pages 309-339.Google Scholar
Morgenbesser, S (1969). “The Realist-Instrumentalist Controversy.” In Philosophy Science and Method. Edited by S. Morgenbesser, P. Suppes, and M. White. New York: St. Martin's Press. Pages 200-218.Google Scholar
Nagel, E (1963). “Assumptions in Economic Theory.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 53: 211-219.Google Scholar
Pitt, J. (ed.). (I98D. Philosophy in Economics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W (1951). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” The Philosophical Review 60: 20-43. (As reprinted in From a Logical Point of View. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1961. Pages 20-46.Google Scholar
Rawis, J (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, L (1935). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A (1976a). “On the Interanimation of Micro and Macroeconomics.” philosophy of the Social Sciences 6: 35-53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, A (1976b). Microeconomic Laws: A Philosophical Analysis. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Rotwein, E (1959). “On ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics.’” Quarterly Journal of Economics 73: 554-575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotwein, E (1962). “On ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’ Reply.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 76: 666-668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotwein, E (1979). “The Methodological Basis of Institutional Economics: Comment.” Journal of Economics Issues 13: 1029-1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, W. (ed.). (1980). The Methodology of Economic Thought: Critical Papers from the Journal of Roonnmin Thought. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P (1947). Foundations of Eoonomlcs Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H (1963). “Problems of Methodology—Discussion.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 53: 229-231.Google Scholar
Stegmüller, W (1973)» Theorienstrukturen und Theoriendynamik. (Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie. Bant II, Zweiter Halbband.) Berlin: Springer-Verlag. (As reprinted as The Structures and Dynamics of Theories. (trans.) William Wohlhueter. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1976.)Google Scholar
Stegmüller, W.; Balzer, H.; and Spohn, W (eds.). (1982). Philosophy of Economics: Proceeding, Munich, July 1981. (Studies in Contemporary Economics, Volume 2.) New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, I (1979). Reasoning and Method in Economics. An Introduction to Eoonomics Methodology. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stiver, G.J (1947). “Professor Lester and the Marginalists.” American Economic Review 37: 154-157.Google Scholar
von Mises, L (1933). Grundprobleme der Nationalökonomie. (As reprinted as Epistemological Problems of Economics, (trans.) Reisman, G. New York: New York University Press, 1981.)Google Scholar
von Mises, L (1949). Human Action. A Treatise on Economics New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
von Mises, L (1978). The Ultimate Foundation of New Science: An Essay on Method. 2nd ed. Kansas City: Sheed Andrews.Google Scholar
White, M (1956). Toward Reunion in Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Winter, S (1962). “Economic ‘Natural Selection1 and the Theory of the Firm.” Yale Economic Essays 4: 255-272.Google Scholar