Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:54:24.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Roy Weintraub's Studies in Appraisal: Lakatosian Consolations or Something Else?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Andrea Salanti
Andrea Salanti
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Bergamo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As made manifest by Clower's (1975) comments on their “science fiction” nature, general equilibrium theories (GET) present such peculiar and puzzling features that the methodologist must perforce seek some specific methodological accommodation for this part of economic theory. The role played by such theories in contemporary economics is so fundamental (in the sense of Green, 1981) that the impossibility of appraising them by means of any version of falsificationism, and their patent lack of (excess) empirical content if approached with the conceptual devices of the methodology of scientific research programs (MSRP), have prompted several scholars interested in the methodology of economics (although from different points of view and for even more different purposes) to search for a reasonable way out.

Type
Essays
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , October 1991 , pp. 221 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Arrow, Kenneth J. 1974. “General Economic Equilibrium: Purpose, Analytic Techniques, Collective Choice.” American Economic Review 64:253–73.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1980. The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A. 1982. The Foundations of Economic Method. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 1982. Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A. 1984a. “Some Problems with Falsificationism in Economics.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 14:489–95.Google Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A. 1984b. “Praxeology and Its Critics: An Appraisal.” History of Political Economy 16:363–79.Google Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A. 1986. “Towards a Broader Conception of Criticism.” History of Political Economy 18:675–81.Google Scholar
Clower, Robert. 1975. “Reflections on the Keynesian Perplex.” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 35:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreu, Gerard. 1984. “Economic Theory in the Mathematical Mode.” American Economic Review 74:267–78.Google Scholar
Debreu, Gerard. 1986. “Theoretic Models: Mathematical Form and Economic Content. Econometrica 54:1259–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Arthur M. Jr, 1988. “The Empirical Progressiveness of the General Equilibrium Research Program.” History of Political Economy 20:119–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Robert M. 1986. The Logic of Economic Discovery. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books.Google Scholar
Friedman, Milton. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 3–43. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, Edward J. 1981. “On the Role of Fundamental Theory in Positive Economics.” In Philosophy in Economics, edited by Pitt, Joseph C., pp. 5–15. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Frank. 1984. Equilibrium and Macroeconomics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hahn, Frank. 1985. “In Praise of Economic Theory.” In Money, Growth and Stability, pp. 10–28. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hands, Douglas W. 1984a. “Blaug's Economic Methodology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 14:115–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, Douglas W. 1984b. “What Economics Is Not: An Economist's Response to Rosenberg.” Philosophy of Science 51:495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, Douglas W. 1985a. “Second Thoughts on Lakatos.” History of Political Economy 17:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, Douglas W. 1985b. “The Structuralist View of Economic Theories: A Review Essay.” Economics and Philosophy 1:303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, Douglas W. 1985c. “The Role of Crucial Counterexamples in the Growth of Economic Knowledge: Two Case Studies in the Recent History of Economic Thought.” History of Political Economy 17:59–67.Google Scholar
Hands, Douglas W. 1990. “Second Thoughts on ‘Second Thoughts’: Reconsidering the Lakatosian Progress of The General Theory.” Review of Political Economy 2:69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, Douglas W. 1992. “Falsification, Situational Analysis and Scientific Research Programs: The Popperian Tradition in Economic Methodology.” In The Methodology of Economics, edited by de Marchi, Neil. Boston: Kluwer, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 1981a. “Are General Equilibrium Theories Explanatory?” In Philosophy in Economics, edited by Pitt, Joseph C., pp. 17–32. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 1981b. Capital, Profits, and Prices. An Essay in the Philosophy of Economics. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 1985. “Is Falsificationism Unpracticed or Unpracticable?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 15:313–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heijdra, Ben J., and Lowenberg, Anton D.. 1988. “The Neoclassical Economic Research Program: Some Lakatosian and Other Considerations.” Australian Economic Papers 27:272–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildenbrand, Werner. 1987. “Review to ‘General Equilibrium Analysis. Studies in Appraisal’.” Journal of Economic Literature 25:747–48.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence W. 1981. “On the Aims and Methods of Economic Theorizing.” In The Politics and Philosophy of Economics, pp. 266–307. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jones, Ronald W. 1965. “The Structure of Simple General Equilibrium Models.” Journal of Political Economy 73:557–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirman, Alan. 1989. “The Intrinsic Limits of Modern Economic Theory: The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Economic Journal 99(Conference):126–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klant, Johannes J. 1984. The Rules of the Game. The Logical Structure of Economic Theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry et al. 1986. “Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research.” Synthese 69:141–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Marchi, Neil (editor). 1988. The Popperian Legacy in Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Mary. 1988. “Finding a Satisfactory Empirical Model.” In The Popperian Legacy in Economics, edited by de Marchi, Neil, pp. 213–27. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan E. 1981. “‘Unreal Assumptions’ in Economic Theory: The F-Twist Untwisted.” Kyklos 34:377–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remeny, Joseph V. 1979. “Core Demi-Core Interaction: Toward a General Theory of Disciplinary and Subdisciplinary Growth.” History of Political Economy 11:30–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1986. “Lakatosian Consolations for Economics.” Economics and Philosophy 2:127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, Bertrand. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Salanti, Andrea. 1987. “Falsificationism and Fallibilism as Epistemic Foundations of Economics: A Critical View.” Kyklos 40:368–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanti, Andrea. 1989. “Distinguishing ‘Internal’ from ‘External’ Criticism in Economic Methodology.” History of Political Economy 21:635–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toruño, Mayo C. 1988. “Appraisals and Rational Reconstructions of General Competitive Equilibrium Theory.” Journal of Economic Issues 22:127–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1979. Microfoundations. The Compatibility of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1983. “On the Existence of a Competitive Equilibrium: 1930–1954.” Journal of Economic Literature 21:1–39.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1985a. “Appraising General Equilibrium Analysis.” Economics and Philosophy 3:23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1985b. General Equilibrium Analysis. Studies in Appraisal. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1987. “Rosenberg's ‘Lakatosian Consolations for Economists’: Comment.” Economics and Philosophy 3:139–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1988a. “The Neo-Walrasian Program Is Empirically Progressive.” In The Popperian Legacy in Economics, edited by de Marchi, Neil, pp. 213–27. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1988b. “On the Brittleness of the Orange Equilibrium.” In The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric, edited by Klamer, Ario, McCloskey, Donald N., and Solow, Robert M., pp. 146–62. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitley, Richard. 1984. The Intellectual and Social Organisation of Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar