Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:30:19.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An ‘Inexact’ Philosophy of Economics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Roger E. Backhouse
Roger E. Backhouse
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics (ISSE) (Hausman, 1992) represents the most ambitious attempt to provide a systematic account of economic methodology since the first edition of Blaug's The Methodology of Economics (1980). As such, it has been the subject of extensive critical commentary (for example, Blaug, 1992b; Backhouse, 1995; Miller, 1996; Hahn, 1996; Mäki, 1996). For all the attention it has received, however, some important aspects of the book's thesis have not been developed properly. Two important ones are (1) what might be called, following the terminology used in the experimental economics literature, the ‘framing effect’ of Hausman's definition of economics, and (2) the significance of Hausman's claim that economists are committed to developing economics as a ‘separate’ science. To understand these points it is important to make explicit the position from which Hausman approaches the philosophy of science.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 13 , Issue 1 , April 1997 , pp. 25 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.)

References

Backhouse, Roger E. 1985. A History of Modern Economic Analysis. Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1994a. ‘The Lakatosian legacy in economic methodology’. In New Directions in Economic Methodology, pp. 173–91. Backhouse, R. E. (ed.). RoutledgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1994b. Economists and The Economy. TransactionGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1995. ‘An empirical philosophy of economic theory’. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 46:111–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1997. Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Edward ElgarCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1980/1992a. The Methodology of Economics. 1st edn. 1980. 2nd edn. 1992. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1992b. Review of Hausman 1992. History of Economic Thought Newsletter, 48:5–6Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1994. ‘Why I am not a constructivist: confessions of an unrepentant Popperian’. In New Directions in Economic Methodology. Backhouse, Roger E. (ed.). RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Campbell, John Y. 1994. ‘The New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance’. Journal of Economic Literature, 32:667–73Google Scholar
Diamond, Peter. 1994. On Time. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Franklin. 1989. ‘Games economists play: a noncooperative view’. Rand Journal of Economics, 20:113–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Frank. 1996. ‘Rerum causas cognoscere’. Economics and Philosophy, 12:183–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 1980/1992. ‘How to do philosophy of economics’ In PSA 1980. Asquith, P. and Giere, R. (eds.). Philosophy of Science Association, 1980. Reprinted in Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology. 1992. Daniel M. Hausman (ed.). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 1997. ‘Why does evidence matter so little to economic theory?’ In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science. von Bentham, J. et al. (ed.). KluwerGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul. 1994. ‘Stolper-Samuelson and the victory of formal economics’. In The Stolper-Samuelson Theorem: A Golden Jubilee. Deardorff, Alan V. and Stern, Robert M. (eds.). University of Michigan PressGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul. 1995. Development, Geography and Economic Theory. MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, Uskali. 1996. ‘Two portraits of economics’. Journal of Economic Methodology, 3:1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, David. 1996. ‘What use is empirical confirmation’. Economics and Philosophy, 12:197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mongin, Philippe. 1992. ‘The full-cost controversy of the 1940s and 1950s: a methodological assessment’. History of Political Economy, 24:311–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, D. P. 1994. Methodology, Money and the Firm. 2 Vols. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
Rhoads, Steven E. 1985. The Economist's View of the World: Government, Markets and Public Policy. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Ross, Stephen A. 1987. ‘The interrelations of finance and economics: theoretical perspectives’. American Economic Review, 77:29–34Google Scholar
Ross, Stephen A. 1987/1989. ‘Finance’. In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. Eatwell, John, Milgate, Murray and Newman, Peter (eds.). Macmillan. Reprinted in The New Palgrave: Finance. John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman (eds.). Macmillan, 1989Google Scholar
Seater, J. 1993. ‘Ricardian equivalence’. Journal of Economic Literature, 31:142–90Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1988. ‘The neo-Walrasian research programme is empirically progressive’. In The Popperian Legacy in Economics. De Marchi, Neil. (ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar