Is methodology fruitless? Intense controversy has resulted from attempts to understand economics through philosophy of science. This collection clarifies and responds to the issues raised, arguing that methodology is an essential activity.

Does economics hold the key to everything or does the recent financial crisis show that it has failed? This book provides an assessment of modern economics that cuts through the confusion and controversy on this question. Case studies of the creation of new markets, the Russian transition to capitalism, globalization, and money and finance establish that economics has been very successful where problems have been well defined and where the world can be changed to fit the theory, but that it (...) has been less successful in tackling bigger problems. The book then offers a historical perspective on how economists have, since the Second World War, tried to make their subject scientific. It explores the evolving relationship between science and ideology and investigates the place of heterodoxy and dissent within the discipline. (shrink)

This paper responds to the argument, made by many heterodox economists, that equilibrium theory should be abandoned in favor of theories that pay more attention to history. It considers some of the main ways in which the concept of equilibrium has been understood in economics, and the reasons why there has been confusion in discussions of equilibrium. The conclusion is drawn that the focus should be less on equilibrium as a concept than on equilibrium analysis as a method, and limited (...) defense of this method is offered. (shrink)

The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics represents the most ambitious attempt to provide a systematic account of economic methodology since the first edition of Blaug's The Methodology of Economics. As such, it has been the subject of extensive critical commentary. 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 what might be called, following the terminology used in the experimental economics literature, the ‘framing effect’ (...) of Hausman's definition of economics, and 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. (shrink)

This paper argues that Milonakis and Fine, in their bookFrom Political Economy to Economics, offer an account of history that systematically omits discussion of how economics has been shaped by the political and social context in which it developed. This contrasts with work by intellectual historians who have argued that such factors were crucial to understanding the history of economic ideas. It is ironic given that Milonakis and Fine are criticising economists for excluding the political and the social from economics.

This survey of the symposium papers argues that the problem of data mining should be of interest to both practicing econometricians and specialists in economic methodology. After summarizing some of the main points to arise in the symposium, it draws on recent work in the philosophy of science to point to parallels between data mining and practices engaged in routinely by experimental scientists. These suggest that data mining might be seen in a more positive light than conventional doubts about it (...) imply. (shrink)

An introduction to the last article on which Terence Hutchison worked, now published under the title,?A formative decade: methodological controversy in the 1930s?, explaining what is known about its writing, and a brief summary of such biographical information and information about his work as is necessary to understand its significance.

This essay addresses the question, raised by Frank Hahn, of whether the study, by economists, of economic methodology is in practice beneficial. After considering what this statement could mean, and discussing the example of Lionel Robbins, it draws a number of conclusions: that methodological statements have unintended, context-dependent consequences, and that these may result from factors that should have nothing to do with economics.

Traditionally, evidence in economics has been seen in the context of theory choice. Much of recent methodological debate on the role of evidence has turned on the recognition that the status and role of evidence is somewhat more involved in economics than the conventional wisdom suggests. Rather than approaching this question in general terms from a starting point of philosophy of science or even science studies, our aim in this introduction to a symposium of articles on evidence in economics is (...) to approach the question from the perspective of applied economics. (shrink)

John Maynard Keynes was the most important economist of the twentieth century. He was also a philosopher who wrote on ethics and the theory of probability and was a central figure in the Bloomsbury Group of writers and artists. In this volume contributors from a wide range of disciplines offer new interpretations of Keynes's thought, explain the links between Keynes's philosophy and his economics, and place his work and Keynesianism - the economic theory, the principles of economic policy, and the (...) political philosophy - in their historical context. Chapter topics include Keynes's philosophical engagement with G. E. Moore and Franz Brentano, his correspondence, the role of his General Theory in the creation of modern macroeconomics, and the many meanings of Keynesianism. New readers will find this the most convenient, accessible guide to Keynes currently available. Advanced students and specialists will find a conspectus of recent developments in the interpretation of Keynes. (shrink)

This paper argues that by focusing on simple problems that can be resolved by the use of simple economic logic, usually involving the assumption that agents are rational, the economics-as-fun literature inevitably distracts from more difficult problems that are harder to solve and which may need to be tackled in different ways and may create a bias towards solutions that rely on the market.

In these two volumes, a group of distinguished economists debate the way in which evidence, in particular econometric evidence, can and should be used to relate macroeconomic theories to the real world. Topics covered include the business cycle, monetary policy, economic growth, the impact of new econometric techniques, the IS-LM model, the labour market, new Keynesian macroeconomics, and the use of macroeconomics in official documents.

Jesper Jespersen’s Macroeconomic methodology: a post Keynesian perspective. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar, 2009, 272 pp. Luigi Pasinetti’s Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: a revolution to be accomplished. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009 [2007], 412 pp.

John Maynard Keynes was the most important economist of the twentieth century. He was also a philosopher who wrote on ethics and the theory of probability and was a central figure in the Bloomsbury Group of writers and artists. In this volume contributors from a wide range of disciplines offer new interpretations of Keynes's thought, explain the links between Keynes's philosophy and his economics, and place his work and Keynesianism - the economic theory, the principles of economic policy, and the (...) political philosophy - in their historical context. Chapter topics include Keynes's philosophical engagement with G. E. Moore and Franz Brentano, his correspondence, the role of his General Theory in the creation of modern macroeconomics, and the many meanings of Keynesianism. New readers will find this the most convenient, accessible guide to Keynes currently available. Advanced students and specialists will find a conspectus of recent developments in the interpretation of Keynes. (shrink)

This paper outlines some of the main methodological issues to arise in macroeconomics, making the case that the methodological issues arising in macroeconomics are just as important as those arising in microeconomics and that they merit more attention. Focusing on the symposium to which it forms the Introduction, the paper discusses three such issues: can macroeconomic theories be tested? Do macroeconomic theories change in response to evidence? Is contemporary macroeconomics in good methodological shape?