Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (4):407-424 (2012)
|Abstract||This paper discusses classification in Economics via the case of ?heterodox economics (HE)?. It argues that the debate over HE reflects several important methodological issues: the need and motives for classification, and its consequences; dualism; and simplicity versus complexity. It presents four types of treatment of HE, which usually reach different conclusions about it. The paper argues that intellectual treatments suffer from problems of dualism: frequently offering strict, fixed, simple definitions of HE that are difficult to defend, especially in the light of recent developments in economics. For these reasons, sociological and psychological treatments have become preferred. These appear to avoid the problems faced by intellectual definitions and reflect existing social groups in economics. However, it is argued that these definitions are conceptually empty, still prone to dualism and reification. It is argued that all definitions reflect the sociology of the profession: dualist definitions of heterodoxy reflect interpretations of power structures within economics. Overall, definitions of HE should be multi-faceted, temporary and perhaps even purposefully vague|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeroen Van Bouwel (2004). Explanatory Pluralism in Economics: Against the Mainstream? Philosophical Explorations 7 (3):299 – 315.
Tony Lawson (2004). Reorienting Economics: On Heterodox Economics, Themata and the Use of Mathematics in Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 11 (3):329-340.
Andy Denis (2008). Dialectics and the Austrian School? The Search for Common Ground in the Methodology of Heterodox Economics. Journal of Philosophical Economics 1 (2):151-173.
Roger E. Backhouse (2012). Economics is a Serious and Difficult Subject. Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (3):231-241.
Kristina Meshelski (2011). Two Kinds of Definition in Spinoza's Ethics. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (2):201-218.
Jeroen Van Bouwel (2004). Explanatory Pluralism in Economics: Against the Mainstream? Philosophical Explorations 7 (3):299-315.
Eric Schliesser (2012). Four Species of Reflexivity and History of Economics in Economic Policy Science. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (3):425-445.
Milan Zafirovski (2003). What is Rationality? Selected Conceptions From Social Theory. Social Epistemology 17 (1):13 – 44.
Tony Lawson (1997). Economics and Reality. Routledge.
Peter Spiegler (2012). The Unbearable Lightness of the Economics-Made-Fun Genre. Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (3):283-301.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-12-01
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?