[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aiy/journl/v1y2015i1p24-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two Disputes of Methods Three Constructivisms and Three Liberalisms. Part I

Author

Listed:
  • Yefimov, V. M.
Abstract
The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller’s historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey’s hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce’s pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinf?r Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of ‘science’ was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics.

Suggested Citation

  • Yefimov, V. M., 2015. "Two Disputes of Methods Three Constructivisms and Three Liberalisms. Part I," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 1(1), pages 24-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:aiy:journl:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:24-33
    DOI: 10.15826/recon.2015.1.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10995/47778
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.15826/recon.2015.1.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John B. Davis & D. W. Hands & Uskali Mäki (ed.), 1998. "The Handbook of Economic Methodology," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 741.
    2. Blaug,Mark, 1997. "Economic Theory in Retrospect," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521577014, September.
    3. Hands,D. Wade, 2001. "Reflection without Rules," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497152, September.
    4. Amadae, S.M., 2003. "Rationalizing Capitalist Democracy," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226016535, April.
    5. Hervé Dumez, 1985. "L'économiste, la Science et le Pouvoir. Le cas Walras," Post-Print hal-00262500, HAL.
    6. Weintraub, E. Roy, 2001. "Making Economic Knowledge: Reflections on Golinski's Constructivist History of Science," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 277-282, June.
    7. Karin Knorr Cetina, 1991. "Epistemic Cultures: Forms of Reason in Science," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 23(1), pages 105-122, Spring.
    8. Till Düppe & E. Roy Weintraub, 2014. "Finding Equilibrium: Arrow, Debreu, McKenzie and the Problem of Scientific Credit," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 10206.
    9. Geoffrey M. Hodgson & Warren J. Samuels & Marc R. Tool (ed.), 1994. "The Elgar Companion to Institutional and Evolutionary Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, volume 0, number 228.
    10. Hervé Dumez, 1985. "L'économiste, la Science et le Pouvoir. Le cas Walras," Post-Print hal-00262501, HAL.
    11. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2010. "Vers une autre science économique (et donc une autre institution de cette science) [Toward another economic science (and thus toward another institution of this science)]," MPRA Paper 49119, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vladiir Yefimov, 2015. "Two Disputes Of Methods, Three Constructivisms, And Three Liberalisms. Part I," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 29-38.
    2. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2014. "Two disputes of methods, three constructivisms, and three liberalisms," MPRA Paper 56499, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2013. "Philosophie et science économiques : leur contribution respective aux discours politiques [Economic philosophy and economic science: their respective contributions to political discourse]," MPRA Paper 54598, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2012. "How Capitalism, University and Mathematics as Institutions Shaped Mainstream Economics," MPRA Paper 47920, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 07 Jul 2013.
    5. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2009. "Comparative historical institutional analysis of German, English and American economics," MPRA Paper 48173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. repec:mje:mjejnl:v:12:y:2017:i:2:p:25-70 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2011. "Дискурсивный Анализ В Экономике:Пересмотр Методологии И Истории Экономической Науки. Часть 1. Иная Методология Экономической Науки [Discourse analysis in economics: methodology and history of econo," MPRA Paper 49157, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Andrea Salanti, 2013. "Between the Scylla of Whig history and the Charybdis of methodological vacuum," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 14, pages 191-207, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2004. "On pragmatist institutional economics," MPRA Paper 49016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Vladimir Yefimov, 2017. "Comparative Historical Institutional Analysis of German, English and American Economics," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 13(2), pages 25-70.
    11. Hervé Dumez, 2010. "Le Libellio d'Aegis," Post-Print hal-00546720, HAL.
    12. Gilles Jacoud, 1994. "Stabilité monétaire et régulation étatique dans l'analyse de Léon Walras," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 45(2), pages 257-288.
    13. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2014. "Constructivisme social, évolution de la profession d’économiste, et projet pour sa réforme radicale [Social constructivism, Evolution of the economics profession, and design for its radical reform]," MPRA Paper 54594, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Beckenbach, Frank, 2019. "Monism in modern science: The case of (micro-)economics," Working Paper Serie des Instituts für Ökonomie Ök-49, Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung (HfGG), Institut für Ökonomie.
    15. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    16. A. Maltsev., 2015. "History of Economic Thought, Quo vadis?," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 3.
    17. Philippe Steiner, 2008. "Foucault, Weber and the history of the economic subject," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 503-527.
    18. Thomas Leonard, 2001. "Reflection on rules in science: an invisible-hand perspective," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 141-168.
    19. Yefimov, Vladimir, 2007. "Предмет И Метод Интерпретативной Институциональной Экономики [Subject matter and method of interpretive institutional economics]," MPRA Paper 49118, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Hervé Dumez & Alain Jeunemaitre, 2010. "Michel Callon, Michel Foucault and the « dispositif »," Post-Print hal-00546736, HAL.
    21. Gérard Charreaux, 2008. "La recherche en finance d’entreprise:quel positionnement méthodologique ?," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 11(Special), pages 237-290, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aiy:journl:v:1:y:2015:i:1:p:24-33. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Irina Turgel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seurfru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.