Bernard Hodgson's Trojan Horse Critique of Neoclassical Economics and the Second Phase of the Empiricist Level of Analysis
Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):15-25 (2012)
| Abstract | This article examines and assesses Bernard Hodgson’s critique of the Neoclassical concept of rationality and its place in the literature. It is argued that Hodgson’s Trojan horse critique is superior to the others because it addresses the role of empiricist epistemology in reducing reason to instrumental rationality and consequent disappearance of the human subject of political economy. The second phase of the empiricist level of analysis reintroduces the capacities for ethical deliberation, self-determination, and the socio-historical conditions and institutional setting of the economic agent. Because Hodgson’s solutions presuppose empiricist terrain, they are arbitrary. This occurs because the fundamental problem of Neoclassical rationality is its ontology. Yet by introducing the human subject into economic theory, Hodgson’s solutions move onto an ontological terrain adequate for economic analysis of human subjects. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPeter J. Boettke (1990). Individuals and Institutions. Critical Review 4 (1-2):10-26.
John Douglas Bishop (2012). The Elephant in the Room: On the Absence of Corporations in Bernard Hodgson's Economics as a Moral Science. Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):27-35.
John McMurtry (2003). The Life-Blind Structure of the Neoclassical Paradigm: A Critique of Bernard Hodgson's "Economics as a Moral Science". Journal of Business Ethics 44 (4):377 - 389.
David Geoffrey Holdsworth (2012). Economics and the Limits of Optimization: Steps Towards Extending Bernard Hodgson's Moral Science. Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):37-48.
Lawrence A. Boland (1998). Situational Analysis Beyond Neoclassical Economists. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 28 (4):515-521.
Milan Zafirovski (2000). The Rational Choice Generalization of Neoclassical Economics Reconsidered: Any Theoretical Legitimation for Economic Imperialism? Sociological Theory 18 (3):448-471.
Bernard Hodgson (1992). Rationality in Economics, Shaun Hargreaves Heap. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989, Ix + 224 Pages. [REVIEW] Economics and Philosophy 8 (02):290-298.
Dennis C. Mueller (2004). Models of Man: Neoclassical, Behavioural, and Evolutionary. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (1):59-76.
Ramón Queraltó (2013). Ethics as a Beneficial Trojan Horse in a Technological Society. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):13-26.
Ramón Queraltó (2013). Ethics as a Beneficial Trojan Horse in a Technological Society. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (1):13-26.
Bernard Hodgson (1983). Economic Science and Ethical Neutrality: The Problem of Teleology. Journal of Business Ethics 2 (4):237 - 253.
Dennis Badeen & Alex C. Michalos (2012). Memorial Symposium for Bernard Hodgson. Journal of Business Ethics 108 (1):1-1.
John M. Gowdy & Peg Olsen (1994). Further Problems with Neoclassical Environmental Economics. Environmental Ethics 16 (2):161-171.
Geoffrey M. Hodgson (1991). Hayek's Theory of Cultural Evolution: An Evaluation in the Light of Vanberg's Critique. Economics and Philosophy 7 (01):67-82.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2011-10-29Total downloads2 ( #232,684 of 549,753 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
