Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:35:27.651Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHY FRIEDMAN’S METHODOLOGY DID NOT GENERATE CONSENSUS AMONG ECONOMISTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

DAVID TEIRA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 201 - 214
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2009

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. L. 1946. “Review of Income from Independent Professional Practice.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 41: 398–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balzer, W., Moulines, U., and Sneed, J. D. 1987. An Architectonic for Science. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Barna, T. 1947. “Review of Income from Independent Professional Practice.” Economica 14: 66–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champernowne, D. G. 1947. “Review of A Theory of the Consumption Function.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 121: 124–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature. Measurement and Scientific Progress. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chao, Hsiang-Ke. 2003. “Milton Friedman and the Emergence of the Permanent Income Hypothesis.” History of Political Economy 35: 77–104.Google Scholar
Despres, E., Friedman, M., Hart, A., Samuelson, P., and Wallace, D. 1950. “The Problem of Economic Instability.” American Economic Review 40: 505–38.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1949. “The Marshallian Demand Curve.” Journal of Political Economy 57: 463–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953a. “The Methodology of Positive Economics. ” In Friedman, Milton, Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953b. “The Marshallian Demand Curve.” In Friedman, Milton, Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 47–99.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1957. A Theory of the Consumption Function. Princeton: NBER.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Milton, and Friedman, Rose D. 1998. Two Lucky People. Memoirs. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M., and Kuznets, S. 1954. Income from Independent Professional Practice. New York: NBER.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel. 1993. “An Interview with Milton Friedman on Methodology.” In Caldwell, Bruce, ed., The Philosophy and Methodology of Economics, Vol. 1. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 216–38.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel. 1996. Theory and Measurement. Causality Issues in Milton Friedman’s Monetary Economics. Cambridge-N.York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hammond, J. Daniel. 1998. “Friedman, Milton.” In David, J. B., Hands, D. W. and Mäki, U., eds., The Handbook of Economic Methodology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1952. Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Abraham, and De Marchi, Neil. 1990. Milton Friedman: Economics in Theory and Practice. The Economists. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Hotelling, Harold, and Secrist, Reseña De H. 1933. “The Triumph of Mediocrity in Business.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 28: 463–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krimsky, Sheldon. 2003. Science in the Private Interest. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Mayer, Thomas. 1972. Permanent Income, Wealth and Consumption. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mongin, P. 1988. “Le réalisme des hypotheses et la partial interpretation view.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 18: 281–325.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernst. 1961. The Structure of Science. New York and Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Porter, Ted. 1986. The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820–1900. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultze, Ch. L. 1958. “Review of A Theory of the Consumption Function.” Science 127: 243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, Stephen. 1994. “Some Correspondence on Methodology between Milton Friedman and Edwin B. Wilson.” Journal of Economic Literature 32: 1197–203.Google Scholar
Stigler, Stephen. 1996. “The History of Statistics in 1933.” Statistical Science 11: 244–52.Google Scholar
Teira, David. 2006. “A Positivist Tradition in Early Demand Theory.” Journal of Economic Methodology 13: 25–47.Google Scholar
Teira, David. 2007. “Milton Friedman, the Statistical Methodologist.” History of Political Economy 39: 511–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, W. A., and Friedman, M. 1942. “The Empirical Derivation of Indifference Functions.” In Lange, O., McYntire, F., Yntema, Th., eds., Studies in Mathematical Economics and Econometrics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 175–89.Google Scholar