Scholarly record
METHODOLOGICAL CROSSROADS – ECONOMICS BETWEEN FORMALISM AND CONTEXTUALISM
Abstract
The recent economic financial crisis has raised questions regarding the predictive capacity of economic theory, of macroeconomic models and the methodology of Economics, respectively. The present paper explores the objective/subjective, explanation/understanding or quantitative/qualitative dichotomy within the methodological dispute between mainstream and more recent trends in Economics. The methodological differentiation towards mainstream economics and Austrians, Institutionalists and others, consists in the awareness of what might and might not be known in economic reality and which is the best way to express this knowledge, by mathematical precision or metaphorical contextual explanations. The main conclusion of the paper is that standard pattern predictions in which a particular circumstance may occur, as well as contextual explanations, the understanding of human action in dynamics, are as exact and scientific as those theories expressed using mathematical language. Scientific progress would be a consequence of recognizing such a fact, since the approach to the human being as an integral piece does not represent a threat to the scientific character of Economics, but on the contrary, it highlights the premise of heightened credibility.
Publication Impact Profile
Publication details
References15
Baciu, L., Controversies and Reevaluations of the Economic Calculus, Proceedings of 5th International Conference on GEBA, pp.186-191, 2011.
Baciu, L., Discurs si comportament economic, Economica, Bucuresti, pp.32-39, 2005.
Blaug, M., The methodology of economics, Cambridge University Press, USA, p.43, 1992.
Boettke, P., Economia vie, Editura Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iași, pp. 217-291, 2013.
Boettke, P., Lavoie, D., Storr, V.H., The Subjectivist Methodology of Austrian Economics and Dewey’s Theory of Inquiry, Annual symposion of the Foundation of the Behavioral Science, American Institute for Economic Research, 20 july 2001.
Georgescu - Roegen, N., Legea entropiei şi procesul economic, Expert, Bucureşti, p. 51, 1996.
Hodge, D., Economics, realism and reality: a comparison of Maki and Lawson, WP no.63/, p.35, 2007.
Huerta de Soto, J., Școala austriacă. Piața și creativitatea antreprenorială, Editura Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iași, p. 27, 2011.
Kirzner, I., The Economic Calculation debate: Lesonns for Austrians, Review of Austrian Economics, vol.2, pp. 1-18, 1988.
Marinescu, C. (ed.), Capitalismul. Logica libertății, Humanitas, București, p.29, 2012.
McCloskey, D., Haw to be Human: Though an Economist, University of Michigan Press, p. 150, 2000.
McCloskey, D., If you are so Smart, The University of Chicago Press, USA, p.146, 1990.
Menard, C., Methodological Issues in New Institutional Economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, vol.8/1, p. 4, 2001.
Salin, P., Liberalismul, Editura Universității Alexandru Ioan Cuza din Iași, p.30, 2013.
Spiegler, P., Milberg, W., Methodenstreit 2013? Historical perspective on the current debate over economic methodology, Forum for Social Economics, Vol.42 (4), pp. 311-345, 2013.
View or Download full articleAccess options
SWS access login
Login as SWS Scientific CommitteeLogin as SWS Scientific PartnerLogin as SWS AuthorAuthors and approved SWS contributors will read and export their own linked papers after identity matching by SWS profile, email and SGEM GlobalID.
For librarian assistance: [email protected]
Purchase Instant Access
- Article can be downloaded after successful payment.
- Article may be used according to SWS library access terms.
- Article cannot be redistributed.
