The Caldwellian Methodological Pluralism: Wishful Thoughts and Personal Tendencies

MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany

Abstract: Economists failed badly both to predict and solve the Great Global Recession of 2008-2010 for two interconnected reasons. The first is that economics has moved too far away from its social foundations. The second reason is that the positivist economic methodology that economics follows has produced both benefits and costs, perhaps even costs than benefits, one may argue. This paper looks at the available evidence (not exhaustively) to argue for a Caldwellian methodological pluralism. It illustrates the advantages of such a methodological approach as well as the disadvantages of its alternatives, especially monolithic positivism.

Keywords: Economic methodology; methodological pluralism; philosophy of economic science; economic research methods; explanation versus prediction. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B41 B50 B59 C81 C82 Y80 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2012-11-30, Revised 2013-02-28
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/44656/1/MPRA_paper_44656.pdf original version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pra:mprapa:44656

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in MPRA Paper from University Library of Munich, Germany Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joachim Winter ().