Dialectics and the Austrian School A Surprising Commonality in the Methodology of Heterodox Economics (original) (raw)
Related papers
The hypostatisation of the concept of equilibrium in neoclassical economics
This chapter explores the meanings of 'equilibrium' in economics, distinguishing salient appropriate and inappropriate modes of deployment of the concept. I examine a specific instance of the deployment of the concept of equilibrium by a neoclassical writer -Robert Lucas -and conclude that the concept has been hypostatised, substituting an aspect for the whole. The temporary is made permanent, and process subordinated to stasis, with apologetic results.
Oeconomica, 2014
Based on the ontological and epistemological problems and solutions exposed in the previous paper ("Problems of the philosophy of natural and social sciences", 2014), we engage in an analysis of the philosophical grounds of three main schools of economics. A careful and unprejudiced examination of the original writings shows that the common ideas and labels (reductionism vs. holism, individualism vs. institutionalism, positivism vs. dialectics, apriorism vs. inductionism etc.) on these schools are misleading. They are not opposing one another as solid blocks of incompatible ideas and theories, but each school contains different approaches and trends, which maintain their internal life and sustain the dialogue between them.
Heterodox Economics: A Common Challenge to Mainstream Economics?
Money, Distribution and Economic Policy, 2007
There is evidence of an increasing coherence, and openness to communication, among the different strands of economics. The purpose of this paper is to address the questions this raises as to whether or not there is still a useful role for the concept of schools of thought. We explore first the categories of orthodox economics and heterodox economics and how we can expect them to develop in the future. In particular, is the relationship between orthodoxy and heterodoxy dualistic, and if so where does this leave pluralism in general and schools of thought within heterodox economics in particular? The meaning of pluralism is explored further with respect to heterodox economics, and the notion of structured pluralism is developed. Structured pluralism can be understood in terms of categories, connections and absence of connections, which, like pluralism, can be applied at a variety of levels. Categories are necessary for knowledge, and some (incomplete) connectivity is necessary for the process of building up new knowledge. The social system, similarly, functions by means of the categorisation of institutions, and (incomplete) connections between them. In the same way, schools of thought are a necessary part of the process of building up and communicating economic knowledge, within a pluralist framework. It is concluded therefore that schools of thought will continue to play an important role in terms of different communities and approaches within heterodox economics. But it is in the nature of structured pluralism that the structure is partial, and thus not allencompassing. It is also provisional and therefore subject to change. In this way schools of thought are enabling rather than constraining.
Beyond Equilibrium Economics: Reflections on the Uniqueness of the Austrian Tradition
The authors (Peter Boettke, Steven Horwitz, and David L. Prychitko) use the revival of the Austrian tradition to contrast market process theory with end-state, or equilibrium, analysis. This piece was originally published in Market Process 4 (2) Fall 1986. This copy is from Peter Boettke and David L. Prychitko (eds.) The Market Process: Essays in Contemporary Austrian Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., 1994
The Review of Austrian Economics, 1999
N ow a full 25 years after the beginning of its revival, the Austrian school seems to have reached a crucial fork in the road. Having spent much energy during the post-revival period on sorting out what the Austrian approach is all about and how it is distinct from the neoclassical mainstream, the school is now faced with the question of how that distinctive approach can be reconciled with some congenial developments in neoclassical economics. There appears to be an increasing trend within the Austrian school toward finding commonalities with these mainstream developments, rather than distancing itself from them. Nicolai Foss's recent book is in many ways an excellent and productive example of this trend. He recapitulates many major Austrian themes while finding ways to connect them to important new work in evolutionary and neo-institutional economics. His attempts to "open up" Austrians to those insights, as well as opening up these other traditions to the contributions of Austrians, are largely successful and serve as a nice model for the kind of work Austrians should aspire to.
Plurality in Orthodox and Heterodox Economics
Several observers have noted signs of a growing plurality in mainstream economics. At the same time there has been a growing emphasis in heterodox economics on commonality. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of plurality in economics in order to make sense of these characterisations, and to consider the issues raised by this plurality. The critical factor is to distinguish between plurality at the level of theory and evidence, at the level of methodological approach (plurality of methods), and at the meta-methodological level (a plurality of methodologies). First it is argued that, while there is plurality at the level of theory and even of type of evidence in orthodox economics, there continues to be monism in terms of methodological approach, and in attitude to methodological alternatives. In heterodox economics, the commonality of methodological approach does not go far before emerging pluralistically into a variety of approaches. Indeed there is, at the meta-methodological level, a range of arguments in heterodox economics for a plurality of methodologies, that is, a recognition that it is legitimate (if not inevitable) that there is more than one approach to economics. growing sense of, and indeed advocacy of, cohesion in heterodox economics around a single (pluralist) methodology.
This article focuses on a broad distinction within economic thinking and the methodological misconceptions that are implied by it. We find today, on the one hand, mainstream economics, which uses both the method of abstract rationality typical of the logical-formal sciences and the method of the natural sciences—two methodologies that, as we shall prove, are inappropriate for the study of social reality. On the other hand we find the opponents of mainstream economics, primarily heterodox economics, who emphasize methodological pluralism and lend, in the extreme, their support to the relativist view that all views may be right in their own way. Such an unconstrained pluralist attitude to method obstructs interaction and reciprocal understanding among students, the scientific appreciation of theoretical contributions and the same fecundating role of pluralism. We shall see that methodological diffuseness is the primary factor explaining the failure of attacks against mainstream economics and we shall look for a solution to this embarrassing impotence by searching for general methodological procedure and rules fully appropriate to the scientific study of social reality.
ECONOMIC SCHOOLS THOUGHT: MAINSTREAM, ORTHODOX AND HETERODOX ECONOMICS
History of economic thought is very important as it shows the economic evolution of humanity. Besides, economic transformations in the last century witnessed the sharpest divisions. These divisions especially based on two basic points. A very general division can be made as neoclassical economics, which is the continuation of classical economics and other economics thoughts that cannot be analyzed as a part of classical economics. It is possible to say that economics can be basically divided into two parts in terms of economics structure: orthodox economics and heterodox economics. Generally, orthodox economics is associated with neoclassical economics; but heterodox economics include almost all the economic thoughts except neo-classical economics. This paper discusses the points in both economics approaches (orthodox economics and heterodox economics). Also, it will become easy to discuss the reason why heterodox economics developed an opposing against orthodox economics.