Talk:Economic methodology

Missing some parts of the story

This is an interesting page, and very well written. Still, I miss some items here, concerning the contributions of Hutchison, Popper and Lakatos, as well as some of the more recent discussions in the field. In the coming weeks I will try to supply some text. Of course I will be very grateful for the critical comments and corrections of other editors.Robertsch55 09:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is a one-half page entry for T.W. Hutchison in The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (v. 2, p. 703). He did, however, write extensively on methodology. All the others listed in the current article have respective Wiki articles. Someone might consider doing an article on him, so that further elaboration would be available for those interested.

On Popper and Lakatos, I am not aware that either has written written on economic methodology, though they are fodder for some writers on economic methodology such as Boland and Caldwell. Still, neither is mentioned in the 13 pp. of entries in The New Palgrave articles by on "philosophy and economics" and "methodology." Whether they should be referenced in this article is another (but, I believe, related) matter. --Thomasmeeks 12:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

An article on T.W. Hutchison has recently been contributed (by me), see Terence Wilmot Hutchison. I have taken the text almost completely from the New School website. His (1938) remains one of the defining contributions to the debate on positivism. His scathing criticism of 'formalism' in his later work of course offended quite a few mainstream economists. Discussions about the consequences for economic methodology of the writings of Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn was quite lively in the 80's (see also references in article Neil de Marchi). Will also put in references to J. Klant (presumably the only true 100%Popperian in economic methodology) and Mark Blaug. Robertsch55 11:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've created T. W. Hutchison & Terence W. Hutchison redirects (which is why I couldn't find said article before). Well, you've addressed the article point above. Ycu clearly have a deep interest in T.W., all to the good. --Thomasmeeks 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

For my texts I will use as a reference John Davis, D. Wade Hands and U. Mäki - Handbook of Economic Methodology, Edward Elgar, 1998. The New Palgrave articles are now 20 years old and may seem a bit biased from a present day's perspective. Thank you for the redirects to TWH (whom I am currently studying quite intensively indeed) and of course for all future comments and suggestions. Robertsch55 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a nice Davis cite on Mainstream economics (which cite not coincidentally, I put up, along with the others). Davis might proudly claim to be heterodox. I certainly like the notion that he seems to favor of pluralism (in particulary where unification is unfruitful). Some new developments may turn out to be detours or dead ends of course. "Biased from a present day's perspective"? We sit on the shoulders of giants, and the principle of charity should apply here as elsewhere, or so I believe. Witness your high regard for TW. JEL classification codes still puts classifies institutional economics, which Davis may incline toward, as heterodox economics, inexact and sometimes misleading as that claasification might be. The Lazear reference you might find to be a nice counterweight. I look forward to an expanded TWH entry (from which I can doubtless learn). Philosophy of economics might also be an article that your interests could benefit from. --Thomasmeeks 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuity in and additions for a recent Edit

A recent article Edit maintains the essential structure of the article present from the beginning (thank you, JQ) in the course of supplementing it. Here are the main features of the Edit:

1. In-line citations were increased in number & moved to footnotes.
2. The 2nd & 3rd paragraphs were consolidated into one paragraph, a list of issues in economic methodology.
3. That list was expanded.
4. Most of the footnotes have links for follow-up of the issue associated with it.
5. Some of the issues have more than one linked footnote, allowing the reader to follow up (or not), depending in interest.
6. Most of the items in the References section were moved to footnotes at the points where they seemed most relevant (a close call in some cases, given overlap of issues, for example placing Samuelson's Foundations earlier with "fundamental principles" rather than later with "formalization").
7. The next-to-last paragraph was added on the relation of the subject to philosophy of economics.
8. The Mill and Keynes books at the "External links" section were moved to footnotes 3 & 5.

The text of the article remains short and to the point. Still, the article could be readily expanded, for example by forming sections on one or more of the issues listed there (or others to be added). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Applied economics

I have just started a page on applied economics that talks about some issues related to methodology. I realise its content and style might be a bit problematic and it is over-reliant on Backhouse and Biddle but I think we needed a page on applied economics. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC))

Change of footnotes (back) to 1 column

Unfortunately many Bots have 2 columns as the default. Advantages of 1 column are that it:

1. allows the reader to see appreciably more successive footnotes per screen (a bigger "map" of upcoming footnotes)
2. is less "busy" visually as to irrelevant footnotes in the other column
3. is much more common in print, and so requires less getting used to.
4. saves space (if most of the footnotes are close to a full line or more).

How to change the footnotes (back) to 1 column? Just change whatever the Reflist was (such as {{Reflist|2}} or {{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}) at the beginning of the footnotes section to {{Reflist}} or {{Reflist|1}}. A note like this on the Talk page or to the Bot editor might reduce use of 2 col. from Bots. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Too many sources, too less text. The same issue as with some other economic articles here. What is the point of adding 20 sources of single sentence? Or maybe a template should be done for this situation for sources cleanup. --Aleksd (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Ways of improving "Economic methodology" by topic with linked references

Ways of improving Economic methodology might include expanding the topics in the text that are footnoted using the footnoted or related sources to develop into a paragraph or 2 each. General references might also be used as a basis of organizing paragraphs or sections, such as, from the footnote 1 references:

• Roger E. Backhouse, 2008. "methodology of economics", The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Lawrence A. Boland, 1987. "methodology", The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, pp. 455-56.
• Daniel M. Hausman, 1989. "Economic Methodology in a Nutshell", Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2), pp. 115-127.
• Kevin D. Hoover, 1995. "Review Article: Why Does Methodology Matter for Economics?" Economic Journal, 105(430), pp. 715-734 and
• Mark Blaug, 1992. The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain, 2nd ed., Cambridge. Description and Preview.

In the meanwhile, the footnoted sources might be consulted, starting with the links. No one "owns" this article of course. And anyone who studies good sources may be in a good position to improve this article. Best wishes. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Drakopoulos's comment on this article

Dr. Drakopoulos has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

the role of mathematics and mathematical economics in economics. Please add:

The systematic use of mathematical methods in economics took place with the emergence of the late nineteenth-century marginalism. The development and gradual establishment of marginal utility theory were associated with the adoption of mathematics as a basic instrument of economic analysis. Most marginalist economists were also convinced that the adoption of a mathematical approach would make economics an exact science like the physical sciences (Mirowski, 1984; 1989; 1991; Schabas, 1990). The prestige of physical sciences was also thought to contribute to the establishment of a positive, value-free economic science (Drakopoulos, 1997). For instance, Jevons argued that the theory of economy presents a close analogy to the science of statical mechanics (Jevons, 1871, p.viii). Similarly, Leon Walras believed that the use of mathematics would make pure economics a science of absolute exactness like physics or mechanics (Walras 1871, pp. 47-48). The Austrian Carl Menger also thought that economics can be as exact as the physical sciences (Menger 1879, p. 218). This methodological trend continued in the works of the second generation marginalists. In his main work Mathematical Psychics (1881), the second generation marginalist F. Y. Edgeworth provides a very systematic methodological grounding for the use of mathematics in the study of social phenomena and of the methodological ideal of physics. Irwin Fisher, who is considered to be one of the most important promoters of marginalism in America, also played a key role for the adoption of mathematical formalism (Fisher, 1892). According to many specialists, Irving Fisher, accomplished the most thoroughgoing mathematization of marginalist theory (e.g. Breslau, 2003; Zouboulakis, 2003). In line with Edgeworth, his methodological viewpoint is focused on the direct analogy between economics and physics. The extensive use of mathematical methods became standard especially after the appearance of Samuelson’s influential publications (1938; 1947). Subsequently, the works of von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944), and of Arrow–Debreu general equilibrium model (1954), further established the use of mathematical methodology in economic theory (Debreu, 1991; Rashid, 1994). Today, the high degree of mathematization of contemporary mainstream economics has been the subject of much debate which focuses on the nature and method of the discipline (see for instance, Beed and Kane, 1991; Dow, 2002; Weintraub, 2002; Drakopoulos and Katselidis, 2015).

References Mirowski, P. (1984) Physics and the ‘marginalist revolution’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8: 361-379. Mirowski, P. (1989). More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Mirowski, P. (1991). The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economic Analysis, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), Winter, 145-157. Schabas, M. (1990) A World Ruled by Number. William Stanley Jevons and the Rise of Mathematical Economics, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Drakopoulos, S. A. (1997) Origins and development of the trend towards value-free economics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought 19: 286-300. Jevons, W. S. (1871) The Theory of Political Economy, London: Macmillan Walras, L. (1871)[1965) Elements of Pure Economics, transl. by W. Jaffe, London: Allen and Unwin. Menger, C. (1879) [1963] Problems of Economics and Sociology, (translated by F. Nack), Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1881) Mathematical Psychics: An Essay of the Application of Mathematics to Moral Sciences, London: Kegan Paul. Fisher, I. (1892) [1965] Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices, New Haven: Yale University Press. Breslau, D. (2003) Economics invents the economy: mathematics, statistics, and models in the work of Irving Fisher and Wesley Mitchell, Theory and Society 32: 379-411. Zouboulakis, M. (2003) L’ équation des échanges de Fisher et la loi de Boyle. Les limites de l’analogie physique en économie, Économies et Societés, 33(12) : 2191-2206. Samuelson, P. (1938) A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behavior, Economica, 5: 61-71. Samuelson, P. (1947) Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Arrow, K. and Debreu, G. (1954) “Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy”, Econometrica, 22: 265–290. Rashid, S. (1994) “John von Neumann, Scientific Method and Empirical Economics”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 1(2): 279-294. Debreu, G. (1991) The mathematization of economic theory, American Economic Review, 81(1): 1-7 Beed, C. and Kane, O. (1991) What is the critique of the mathematization of economics?, Kyklos, 44: 581-612. Weintraub, E.R (2002). How Economics Became a Mathematical Science, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press. Dow, S. (2002) Economic Methodology: An Inquiry, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Drakopoulos, S.A. and Katselidis, I. (2015). From Edgeworth to Econophysics: a Methodological Perspective, Journal of Economic Methodology. 22(1): 77-95.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Drakopoulos has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference 1: Drakopoulos, Stavros A. & Katselidis, Ioannis, 2012. "The Development of Trade Union theory and Mainstream Economic Methodology," MPRA Paper 39239, University Library of Munich, Germany.

• Reference 2: Drakopoulos, Stavros A. & Katselidis, Ioannis, 2013. "From Edgeworth to Econophysics: A Methodological Perspective," MPRA Paper 46975, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Nosenzo's comment on this article

Dr. Nosenzo has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"the role of experiments in economics[13]" -- perhaps a useful reference to add in [13] is Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules by Nicholas Bardsley, Robin Cubitt, Graham Loomes, Peter Moffatt, Chris Starmer & Robert Sugden; http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9074.html

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Nosenzo has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

• Reference : D Nosenzo & Jon Anderson & Stephen V Burks & Jeffrey Carpenter & Lorenz Gotte & Karsten Maurer & Ruth Potter & Kim Rocha & Aldo Rustichini, 2012. "Self-Selection and Variations in the Laboratory Measurment of Other-Regarding Preferences Across Subject Pools: Evidence from One College Student and Two Adult Samples," Discussion Papers 2012-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economic methodology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527140041/http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/selectedpapers/sp7.pdf to http://www.chicagobooth.edu/faculty/selectedpapers/sp7.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426014937/http://www.hetsa.org/pdf/32-A-2.pdf to http://www.hetsa.org/pdf/32-A-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402163650/http://www.terry.uga.edu/~last/classes/8130/readings/sims_1980.pdf to http://www.terry.uga.edu/~last/classes/8130/readings/sims_1980.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928235616/http://www.nd.edu/~pmirowsk/pdf/Weintraub_review_Isis.pdf to http://www.nd.edu/~pmirowsk/pdf/Weintraub_review_Isis.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)