Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:27:03.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Modal View and Defending Microeconomics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Steven Rappaport
Steven Rappaport*
Affiliation:
De Anza College
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

What Daniel Hausman has called “the simple criticism of economic theory”1 is succinctly conveyed by the following passage: “We know full well not only that commodities are not infinitely divisible (which is only intended as a simplification), but businessmen do not always attempt to maximize profits and that the preferences of consumers are not always transitive. ‘Businessmen maximize profits’ and ‘a consumer’s preferences are transitive’ are fundamental economic ‘laws’. How can economists rationally accept a theory which is so full of falsehoods?” (1981a, p. 382). In a recent paper Hausman considers several defenses of neoclassical microeconomics against the simple criticism. One of them is the modal view which Hausman initially characterizes in the, following admittedly vague and ambiguous manner: “Microeconomic general statements are modal (counter-factual) claims.

Type
Part V. Social Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 289 - 297
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1986

References

Boland, L. (1977). “Testability in Economic Science.” The South African Journal of Economics 45: 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbard, A. and Varian, H. (1978). “Economic Models.” The Journal of Philosophy 75: 664–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. (1984). “What Economics is Not: An Economist’s Response to Rosenberg.” Philosophy of Science 51: 495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. (1981a). “John Stuart Mill’s Philosophy of Economics.” Philosophy of Science 48: 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. (1981b). Capital, Profits, and Prices. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, D. (1984)“Defending Microeconomic Theory.” The Philosophical Forum XV: 392–404.Google Scholar
Henderson, J. and Quandt, R. (1980). Microeconomic Theory. 3rd ed. Tokyo: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Lester, R. (1946). “Shortcomings of Marginal Analysis for Wage-Employment Problems.” American Economic Review 36: 62–82.Google Scholar
Nicholson, W. (1978). Microeconomic Theory. Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Steve , (forthcoming). “What is Really Wrong with Friedman’s Methodology of Economics.” Reason Papers.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. (1947). “The Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve and Rigid Prices.” The Journal of Political Economy LV: 432–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tullock, G. and McKenzie, R. (1985). The New World of Economics. 4th ed. Homewood, Illinois: Richard Irwin, Inc.Google Scholar