Advertisement

Economic Epistemology

  • Alain HerscoviciEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

From a lakatosian approach, I will define the neoclassical Scientific Research Program (SPR) and I will demonstrate how and why Ricardo, Keynes and Stiglitz’ results allow refuting this SRP.

References

  1. Akerlof, G. 1970. The Market for “Lemons”: Qualitative Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 89: 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, Kenneth J. 1974a. Limited Knowledge and Economic Analysis. American Economic Review 64 (1) (March): 1–10.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1974b. General Economic Equilibrium: Purpose, Analytic Techniques, Collective Choice. The American Economic Review 64 (3) (June): 253–272.Google Scholar
  4. Backhouse, Roger E. 2004. Introduction. In New Directions in Economic Methodology, ed. Roger E. Backhouse, 1–26. Taylor & Francis e-Library. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Barrère, Alain. 1985. Le projet keynésien. In Keynes aujourd’hui: théories et politiques. Paris: Economica.Google Scholar
  6. Barzel, Yoram. 1997. Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bidard, Christian. 2014. The Ricardian Rent Theory Two Centuries After. Document de travail Working Paper 2014-54, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre la Défense.Google Scholar
  8. Blaug, Mark. 1976. Kuhn Versus Lakatos or Paradigms Versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics. In Method and Appraisal in Economics, ed. J. Spiro, 149–198. Latsis: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 1993. The Revenge of Homo Economicus: Contested Exchange and the Revival of Political Economy. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (1): 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braudel, Fernand. 1985. La dynamique du capitalisme. Paris: Champs Flammarion.Google Scholar
  11. Burgenmeier, B. 1994. The Misperception of Walras. The American Economic Review 84 (1) (March): 342–352.Google Scholar
  12. Chick, Victoria. 2004. On Open Systems. Brazilian Journal of Political Economy 24 (1) (janeiro–março): 3–16.Google Scholar
  13. Chick, V., and S. Dow. 2001. Formalism, Logic and Reality: A Keynesian Analysis. Cambridge Journal of Economics 25: 705–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, J.M. 1891. Distribution as Determined by a Law of Rent. Quarterly Journal of Economics 5 (April): 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coase, Ronald. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–43.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1988. The Firm, the Market and the Law. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Colander, David. 2000. The Death of Neoclassical Economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (2): 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dvoskin, Ariel, and Saverio M. Fratini. 2016. On the Samuelson-Etula Master Function and the Capital Controversy. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23 (6): 1032–1058.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2016.1186920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedman, Milton. 1974. Comments on the Critics. In Milton Friedman’s Monetary Framework: A Debate with His Critics, ed. R.J. Gordon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2009. The Methodology of Positive Economic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Grossman, S.J., and J.E. Stiglitz. 1976. Information and Competitive Price System. The American Economic Review 66 (2) (May): 246–253.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 1980. On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets. The American Economic Review 70 (3) (June): 393–408.Google Scholar
  23. Hands, D. Wade. 2004. The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Some Thought on the Possibilities. In New Directions in Economic Methodology, ed. Roger E. Backhouse, 76–110. Taylor & Francis e-Library. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2013. Mark Blaug on the Normativity of Welfare Economics. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 6 (3, Special Issue) (Winter): 1–25.Google Scholar
  25. Harris, Donald. 1978. Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hausman, Daniel M. 2004. Kuhn, Lakatos and the Character of Economics. In New Directions in Economic Methodology, ed. Roger E. Backhouse. Taylor & Francis e-Library. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Herscovici, Alain. 2002. Dinâmica Macroeconômica: uma interpretação a partir de Marx e de Keynes. São Paulo: EDUC/EDUFES.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2006. A teoria dos fundos de empréstimos: um estudo dos modelos agregados neoclássico e keynesiano. Análise Econômica (UFRGS) 46: 109–122.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2015. A Economia Neoclássica: uma análise lakatosiana. Revista de Economia Política (Impresso) 35: 10–31.Google Scholar
  30. Hicks, J.R. 1937. Mr. Keynes and the “Classics”: A Suggested Interpretation. Econometrica 5 (2) (April): 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hutchison, T.W. 2004. Ends and Means in the Methodology of Economics. In New Directions in Economic Methodology, ed. Roger E. Backhouse, 27–34. Taylor & Francis e-Library. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Keynes, John Maynard. 2009 [1936]. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Classic Books America.Google Scholar
  33. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1991/1962. A estrutura das revoluções científicas. São Paulo: Editora Perspectiva.Google Scholar
  34. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970: 91–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ———. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs, vol. 1. Philosophical Papers, ed. John Worral and Gregory Currie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Latsis, Spiro J. 1976. A Research Programme in Economics. In Method and Appraisal in Economics, ed. J. Spiro, 1–42. Latsis: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lisboa, Marcos. 1988. A miséria da crítica heterodoxa. Revista de Economia Contemporânea n.3, UFRJ.Google Scholar
  38. Mankiw, N.G. 1985. Small Menu Costs and Large Business Cycles: A Macroeconomic Model of Monopoly. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 100 (2): 529–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marcuzzo, Maria Cristina, and Annalisa Rosselli. 2011. Sraffa and His Arguments Against ‘Marginism’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35: 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martins, Nuno Ornela. 2013. The Cambridge Contribution to the Revival of Classical Political Economy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Orléan, André. 2011. L’empire de la valeur. Refonderl’Économie [The empire of value. Rebuilding the Economy]. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
  42. Pasinetti, L. 1997. The Marginal Efficiency of Investment. In ASecond Editionof the General Theory-Vol. 1, ed. G.C. Harcourt and P.A. Riach, 198–218. Routledge: London and New York.Google Scholar
  43. Petri, Fabio. 1998. The “Sraffian” Critique of Neoclassical Economics: Some Recent Developments. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia Política (3) (dezembro de 1998), Rio de Janeiro: 5–44.Google Scholar
  44. Ricardo, David. 1821. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 3rd edn. Ontario: Batoche Book 2001.Google Scholar
  45. Salop, Steve. 1976. Information and Monopolistic Competition. The American Economic Review 66 (2) (May): 240–245 (Papers and Proceedings of the Eighty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association).Google Scholar
  46. Sen, Amartya. 1982. Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Stigler, George J. 1961. The Economics of Information. The Journal of Political Economy 69 (3) (June): 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1987. The Causes and Consequences of the Dependence of Quality on Price. Journal of Economic Literature XXV (March): 1–48.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1994. Whiter Socialism? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. ———. 2003. Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics, Part 1. American Economist 48 (1) (Fall): 6–26.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2011. Rethinking Macroeconomics: What Failed and How to Repair It. Journal of the European Economic Association 9 (4) (August): 591–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weintraub, R. 1985. Appraising General Equilibrium Analysis. Economics and Philosophy 1: 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wicksteed, P.H. 1914. The Scope and Method of Political Economy in the Light of the ‘Marginal Theory’ of Value and Distribution. Economic Journal 24: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williamson, Oliver. 2002. The Theory of the Firm as Governance Structure: From Choice to Contract. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (3) (Summer): 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations