The Experts below are selected from a list of 7575 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Milan Zafirovski - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Rational Choice Theory at the Origin? Forms and Social Factors of “Irrational Choice”
Social Epistemology, 2016Co-Authors: Milan ZafirovskiAbstract:The paper addresses the ‘rational choice only’ reconstruction, characterization, and interpretation of classical and Neoclassical Economics. It argues that such a reconstruction is inaccurate failing to do justice to the dual theoretical character of classical/Neoclassical Economics. The paper instead proposes and shows that the latter involves not only elements of ‘rational choice theory’ but also those of an alternative conception. It identifies various and important ideas, observations, and implications of irrational choice and action within classical/Neoclassical Economics. One class of such ingredients involves forms, expressions, and cases—i.e. specification and classification—of irrational choices in the economy. Another class comprises the social and other factors—i.e. economic sociology or social Economics—of irrational choices in the economy. The paper’s intended contribution is to help identify and clarify the extant sources and alternatives of rational choice theory in conventional Economics. ...
-
Sociological dimensions in classical/Neoclassical Economics: Conceptions of social Economics and economic sociology
Social Science Information, 2014Co-Authors: Milan ZafirovskiAbstract:This article posits that traditional Economics contains relevant sociological dimensions and that these consist primarily of conceptions and elements of social Economics or economic sociology. On this premise, it explores these sociological dimensions in the form of conceptions and elements of social Economics and/or economic sociology in classical political economy and Neoclassical Economics. The article identifies explicit conceptions of social Economics such as the proposal for social economy and the idea of economic sociology as well as its implicit versions, including its implications in ‘purest’ economic theory. Alternatively, the article finds no important sociological dimensions in the form of rational choice theory, i.e. the ‘Economics of society’, in classical and Neoclassical economic science. The article reconsiders Economics and sociology in their shared elements or complementary relations as ‘sister’ social sciences.
-
the rational choice generalization of Neoclassical Economics reconsidered any theoretical legitimation for economic imperialism
Sociological Theory, 2000Co-Authors: Milan ZafirovskiAbstract:The article reconsiders the generalization of Neoclassical Economics by modern rational choice theory. Hence, it reexamines the possible theoretical grounds or lack thereof within Neoclassical Economics for economic imperialism implied in much of rational choice theory. Some indicative instances of rational choice theory's generalization of Neoclassical Economics are reviewed. The main portion of the article addresses the question as to whether Neoclassical Economics allows its generalization in rational choice theory and thus legitimizes economic imperialism. Presented are a number of pertinent theoretical reasons why Neoclassical Economics does not fully justify its generalization into rational choice as a general social theory, particularly into an overarching economic approach to social action and society. Also discussed are some theoretical implications of the rational choice generalization of Neoclassical Economics. The main contribution of the article is to detect lack of a strong theoretical rationale in much of Neoclassical Economics for rational choice theory's manifest or latent economic imperialism.
-
How 'neo-classical' is Neoclassical Economics?: with special reference to value theory
History of Economics Review, 1999Co-Authors: Milan ZafirovskiAbstract:This article presents the argument that most of post-classical Economics since the 1870s represents, particularly in its analytical or scientific dimensions, a non-classical rather than neo-classical Economics. This is especially true of micro-Economics, i.e., the theory of value/prices and distribution. On the other hand, insofar as it is based on the doctrine of laissez-faire (slightly modified), post-classical Economics can be characterized as neo-classical and only in its ideological and other meta-scientific aspects. It is here argued that the notion of ‘Neoclassical Economics’, as applied to post-classical, including contemporary, micro-Economics, is not only a terminological misnomer, but it also implies a serious substantive fallacy. To support that argument, the paper identifies and elaborates the formal-theoretical inconsistency of the designation ‘Neoclassical Economics’ with the crust of contemporary marginalist value theory. Hence, the paper’s contribution is to show the inadequacy of...
Arne Heise - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The resilience of modern Neoclassical Economics – a case study in the light of Ludwik Fleck’s ‘harmony of deception’
Journal of Philosophical Economics, 2020Co-Authors: Arne HeiseAbstract:In this paper, Ludwick Fleck’s philosophy and sociology of science will be briefly outlined in order to establish a ‘theory of the resilience of scientific misapprehension’. This theory will be use in order to gain insights into the modes of operation of defence and resilience of modern Neoclassical Economics in the face of recent harsh critique by singling out a case of extreme deviation of theoretical prediction from empirical evidence: minimum wages’ impact on employment.
-
Ludwik Fleck's philosophy and sociology of science and the resilience of modern Neoclassical Economics: A case study
2020Co-Authors: Arne HeiseAbstract:[Introduction] Ludwik Fleck’s contribution to the sociology and philosophy of science has gone almost unnoticed to the present day (see Sady 2017). Although his ideas about the development of scientific knowledge as a collective effort organised in ‘thought collectives’ (‘Denkkollektive’) based on shared ‘thought styles’ (‘Denkstile’) may have been elaborated and honed in Thomas S. Kuhn’s works on scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts and those of Imre Lakatos on scientific research programs (srp), Fleck’s work is still insightful beyond Kuhn’s and Lakatos’ contributions, not so much with respect to what triggers scientific progress but rather what impedes the correction of scientific deceptions. While Kuhn and Lakatos built on the rationality of the scientific community not to follow paradigmatic lines or adhere to scientific research programs defeated by empirical falsification or the proof of logical inconsistency or having entered the ‘state of degeneration’, Fleck was more concerned with the sociological forces that explain the resilience of ideas and what today we would call ‘fake knowledge’ even in the face of mounting evidence that does not fit the established wisdom. In the following, Fleck’s philosophy and sociology of science will be briefly outlined in order to establish a ‘theory of the resilience of scientific misapprehension’. This theory will be tested against the development of modern Neoclassical Economics by singling out a case of extreme deviation of theoretical prediction from empirical evidence: minimum wages’ impact on employment.
Jamie Morgan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what is Neoclassical Economics debating the origins meaning and significance
2015Co-Authors: Jamie MorganAbstract:1. What is this school called Neoclassical Economics? Tony Lawson 2. From Neoclassical theory to mainstream modelling: fifty years of moral hazard in perspective John Latsis and Constantinos Repapis 3. Neo-classicism, critical realism and the Cambridge methodological tradition Sheila Dow 4. Lawson, Veblen and Marshall: How to read modern Neoclassicalism Anne Mayhew 5. Lawson on Veblen on social ontology John B. Davis 6. Why is this school called Neoclassical Economics? Classicism and neoclassicism in historical context Nuno Ornelas Martins 7. Ten Propositions on 'Neoclassical' Economics John King 8. Neoclassical Economics: An Elephant is not a Chimera But is a Chimera Real? Ben Fine 9. The State of Nature and Natural States - ideology and formalism in the critique of Neoclassical Economics Brian O' Boyle and Terrence McDonough 10. Heterodox Economics, social ontology, and the use of mathematics Mark Setterfield 11. Is Neoclassical Economics mathematical? Is there a non-Neoclassical mathematical Economics? Steve Keen 12. Neoclacissism forever Don Ross 13. Reflections upon Neoclassical Labour Economics Steve Fleetwood
-
what s in a name tony lawson on Neoclassical Economics and heterodox Economics
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2015Co-Authors: Jamie MorganAbstract:In this article I respond to Tony Lawson’s ‘What is this ‘School’ called Neoclassical Economics?’ Lawson’s paper is provocative because it reformulates Neoclassical Economics, based on Veblen’s original intent, as a mismatch created by recognising the value of an evolutionary approach to the economy whilst remaining over-reliant on elements of a ‘taxonomic’ approach. For Lawson many heterodox economists may be Neoclassical under this description. I argue that there is clearly a case to be heard but that the reformulation of the Neoclassical raises a number of issues. There are issues concerning the specific critique of the current usage of the term ‘Neoclassical’—regarding genealogy and meaning. There are specific issues regarding the further development of the new (old Veblen) definition of the Neoclassical: how clear is the definition in a practical context as a way to identify a ‘Neoclassical group’, based on the commitments of the critique and the definition, what does it mean to be ‘more realistic’, and what is the strategic value of such a provocation for heterodoxy? I argue that the combination of these are reasons for more consideration of issues of social ontology not less insofar as the terms of the argument are incomplete, and this invites both Lawson and those he is criticising to progress the argument, particularly on method.
-
What’s in a name? Tony Lawson on Neoclassical Economics and heterodox Economics
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2014Co-Authors: Jamie MorganAbstract:In this article I respond to Tony Lawson’s ‘What is this ‘School’ called Neoclassical Economics?’ Lawson’s paper is provocative because it reformulates Neoclassical Economics, based on Veblen’s original intent, as a mismatch created by recognising the value of an evolutionary approach to the economy whilst remaining over-reliant on elements of a ‘taxonomic’ approach. For Lawson many heterodox economists may be Neoclassical under this description. I argue that there is clearly a case to be heard but that the reformulation of the Neoclassical raises a number of issues. There are issues concerning the specific critique of the current usage of the term ‘Neoclassical’—regarding genealogy and meaning. There are specific issues regarding the further development of the new (old Veblen) definition of the Neoclassical: how clear is the definition in a practical context as a way to identify a ‘Neoclassical group’, based on the commitments of the critique and the definition, what does it mean to be ‘more realistic’, and what is the strategic value of such a provocation for heterodoxy? I argue that the combination of these are reasons for more consideration of issues of social ontology not less insofar as the terms of the argument are incomplete, and this invites both Lawson and those he is criticising to progress the argument, particularly on method.
Nicola Giocoli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Blanqui Lecture - In the Sign of the Axiomatic Method: Mathematics as the Role Model for Neoclassical Economics
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2006Co-Authors: Nicola GiocoliAbstract:Born out of the conscious effort to imitate mechanical physics, Neoclassical Economics ended up in the mid 20th century embracing a purely mathematical notion of rigor as embodied by the axiomatic method. This lecture tries to explain how this could happen, or, why and when the economists' role model became the mathematician rather than the physicist. According to the standard interpretation, the triumph of axiomatics in modern Neoclassical Economics can be explained in terms of the discipline's increasing awareness of its lack of good experimental and observational data, and thus of its intrinsic inability to fully abide by the paradigm of mechanics. Yet this story fails to properly account for the transformation that the word rigor itself underwent first and foremost in mathematics as well as for the existence of a specific motivation behind the economists' decision to pursue the axiomatic route. While the full argument is developed in Giocoli 2003, these pages offer a taste of a (partially) alternative story which begins with the so-called formalist revolution in mathematics, then crosses the economists' almost innate urge to bring their discipline to the highest possible level of generality and conceptual integrity, and ends with the advent and consolidation of that very core set of methods, tools and ideas that constitute the contemporary image of Economics.
-
modeling rational agents the consistency view of rationality and the changing image of Neoclassical Economics
Cahiers d'économie Politique Papers in Political Economy, 2005Co-Authors: Nicola GiocoliAbstract:The paper investigates the development of the notion of rationality in choice and decision theory from the viewpoint of the transformation undertaken by Neoclassical Economics during the 20th century — the so-called formalist revolution. The main point is that the reduction of the economic agent to a consistency restriction, carried out by Samuelson's revealed preference theory and (via von Neumann and Morgenstern) Savage's expected utility theory, behind the facade of improving the empirical accountability of Economics, eventually acted as a catalyst for that transformation. Thus, no real difference seems to exist on these grounds between Samuelson's, von Neumann and Morgenstern's or Savage's operationalist accounts of choice and decision theory and a purely formalistic approach like Debreu's one.
-
mathematics as the role model for Neoclassical Economics blanqui lecture
MPRA Paper, 2005Co-Authors: Nicola GiocoliAbstract:Born out of the conscious effort to imitate mechanical physics, Neoclassical Economics ended up in the mid 20th century embracing a purely mathematical notion of rigor as embodied by the axiomatic method. This lecture tries to explain how this could happen, or, why and when the economists’ role model became the mathematician rather than the physicist. According to the standard interpretation, the triumph of axiomatics in modern Neoclassical Economics can be explained in terms of the discipline’s increasing awareness of its lack of good experimental and observational data, and thus of its intrinsic inability to fully abide by the paradigm of mechanics. Yet this story fails to properly account for the transformation that the word “rigor” itself underwent first and foremost in mathematics as well as for the existence of a specific motivation behind the economists’ decision to pursue the axiomatic route. While the full argument is developed in Giocoli 2003, these pages offer a taste of a (partially) alternative story which begins with the so-called formalist revolution in mathematics, then crosses the economists’ almost innate urge to bring their discipline to the highest possible level of generality and conceptual integrity, and ends with the advent and consolidation of that very core set of methods, tools and ideas that constitute the contemporary image of Economics.
Daniel M. Hausman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
theory appraisal in Neoclassical Economics
Journal of Economic Methodology, 1997Co-Authors: Daniel M. HausmanAbstract:After answering relatively minor criticisms of The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics by Geert Reuten and Uskali Maki, this essay grants their main charge that I could not sensibly defend the way economists assess theories while at the same time criticizing their insistence that economic theories be unified and of maximal scope. I should have said that economists are mistaken in their methods of assessment because they focus on the wrong data and because they unjustifiably insist that only unified theories with wide scope need be considered.
-
Essays on philosophy and economic methodology: On the conceptual structure of Neoclassical Economics – a philosopher's view
Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology, 1992Co-Authors: Daniel M. HausmanAbstract:In this chapter I shall discuss two related philosophical issues concerning Economics (see Hausman 1981b, chs. 3, 6). First, what is the nature and the significance of models in Economics? Why does nearly all theoretical work take the form of (unrealistic) model building? How are such models related to things such as laws and theories which are more familiar to philosophers? Second, what is the fundamental theory or model of Neoclassical Economics? How is that fundamental theory or model related to specific Neoclassical theories or models? What is the unit of appraisal of Neoclassical Economics? I hope to sketch in broad strokes a conceptual map of fundamental Neoclassical theory – to provide a consistent and sensible way of seeing the whole enterprise – that is congruent with the actual practices of Economics. WHAT ARE MODELS AND WHY ARE THEY SO IMPORTANT IN Economics? The models that economists employ should be regarded as complex predicates or concepts or as definitions of such complex predicates or concepts. A model is of the same logical kind as a predicate, such as “is triangular,” or as a definition of what it is to be triangular. One thus does not test a model, nor does one say that a model is true (except perhaps in the trivial way in which a definition is true). This is not, of course, to deny that one can use models to make claims about the world which may be tested and which may be true or false.
