Search results

The purpose of the study is to explore contributions made in Islamic economics methodology, particularly in the use of mathematical models used to build Islamic economic theories.

The methodology adopted is a survey by means of literature review.

Overuse of mathematical models in economics has it apparent weakness in simplifying complex realities and use of impracticable assumptions. But, that notwithstanding, they have a role to play in the development of Islamic economics. Empirical analysis in Islamic economics has weaknesses, including the very fact that moral phenomenon in Islamic economics is difficult to quantify, but its contribution, just like mathematics, is needed to develop the field. Islamic economics adopt mathematical models that do not cause obstacles in achieving the aim of Islamic economics, which is Falah. Where it is harmful, it is discarded. Islamic economics has yet to have a universally accepted research methodology; instead, numerous methodologies are used today. The poor use of mathematics in Islamic economics by new researchers, among other factors, may be due to young researchers’ poor background in mathematics.

The paper is unique in looking at the topic of Islamic economic methodology from the angle of application of mathematical models.

The purpose of this chapter is to study the mathematisation of finance – excessive use of mathematical models in finance – which has been widely blamed for the recent financial and economic crisis. We argue that the problem might actually be the financialisation of mathematics, as evidenced by the gradual embedding of branches of mathematics into financial economics. The concept of embeddedness, originally proposed by Polanyi, is relevant to describe the sociological relationship between fields of knowledge. After exploring the relationship between mathematics, finance and economics since antiquity, we find that theoretical developments in the 1950s and 1970s lead directly to this embedding. The key implication of our findings is the realization that it has become necessary to disembed mathematics from finance and economics, and proposes a number of partial steps to facilitate this process. This chapter contributes to the debate on the mathematisation of finance by uniquely combining a historical approach, which chronicles the evolution of the relation between mathematics and finance, with a sociological approach from the perspective of Polyani’s concept of embedding.

Seligman noted four topics that Rogers investigated in this pamphlet: the principles that regulate the exchange value of commodities; the wage theory; the incidence of taxes on agricultural products and an analysis of the economic consequences of a commutation of the tithe. This last topic Rogers treated mathematically. Seligman asserted that the appearance of Malthus's Principles of Political Economy in 1820…[gave] rise to an active discussion on some of the fundamental topics in dispute between Ricardo, Say and Malthus…. Most of the essays of the time, however, were concerned with the discussion of the nature and measure of value, and of these the majority based themselves on the theory advocated by Ricardo and McCulloch. (1903, pp. 351–352)

After a clarification of definitions important in methodological discussions, a brief history of early methodological thought in economics and political economy is presented. The development of “orthodox” methodology is traced, and the fundamental assumptions underlying neoclassical economic methodology are enumerated. Philosophical positions – both critical of and sympathetic to the orthodox assumptions – are presented. In addition, the advantages and disadvantages of various heterodox positions are surveyed. Throughout the paper, methodological justifications for the emphasis on primarily deductive, complex mathematical models in contemporary economics as practiced in the USA – especially in light of the relevance and importance of primarily verbal, interpretive methodologies in the realm of applied and policy‐oriented economics – are examined.

Assesses the place of Heinrich von Stackelberg in the history of ideas as reflected in the literature of economics. Uses evidence from three main sources: histories of economics, the periodical literature and doctoral dissertations to support the conclusion that Stackelberg already has an important and lasting place in the history of economic thought. Points out that the use of Stackelberg’s ideas and techniques is now as general and common as the use of those of Cournot, Walras, Pareto and Nash. Presents a short section devoted to his views on state control because these are so often misunderstood. Speculates on possible reasons why Stackelberg is not ranked more highly than he usually is.

Investigates the economic methodologies of Carl Menger, William Stanley Jevons and Gustav Schmoller with respect to the issue of whether mathematics is or is not an adequate language to express economic relationships. First, Menger’s and Jevons’s respective methodologies are identified as Aristotelian which means, inter alia, that economic properties are real, are naturally related to each other, exist as part of the observable world and can be separated (in thought or otherwise) from other properties. Second, it is shown how this general Aristotelian outlook has very different implications for Menger’s and Jevons’s thinking about mathematics. Third, these two “monogenetic” views are contrasted with Gustav Schmoller’s “polygenetic” approach which holds that a purely deductive economics, based on a small number of self‐evident principles, is inadequate for social purposes.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify definitions in economics.

To apply the insights of Austrian economics to terms widely used in the profession.

The authors find that the Austrian approach brings clarification to communication.

The authors know of no other such attempt. Therefore this paper presumably has some originality.

Once dismissed as a dismal science, economics has, over a period of three centuries, acquired a respectability, signified quite appropriately by the institution of a separate Nobel prize. It is not any longer a study dealing with the simple laws of supply and demand. Today, it is an extensive and well developed academic discipline with its own specialized branches such as econometrics. Today's student of economics faces the problem common to most other disciplines, namely, proliferation of the subject literature. Luckily for him, there is no dearth of guidebooks and manuals which attempt to teach the beginner the art and science of looking for and finding appropriate information. These include The Uses of Economics Literature, How to Find Out About Economics, Economics and Commerce: The Sources of Information and Their Organization, and Economics: Bibliographic Guide to Reference Books and Information Sources. Any standard textbook would provide an adequate introduction to the basic concepts in the various branches of economics like economic theory, economic history, labor economics, mathematical economics, microeconomics, macroeconomics and price theory. These texts, however, may not contain information on the state of the art in each area. For this purpose, one needs to resort to sources like the AEA Survey of Economic Theory and the Survey of Applied Economics. On a lay level, we have the annual Readings in Economics, which deals with current economic problems, like inflation, unemployment, growth, income distribution, externalities and international economics. Basically, it is a collection of writings dealing with the foundations of economics and its critics. An important recent development in the publication of the state of the art reviews in the various branches of economics will be highlighted in my second annual State‐of‐the‐Art Survey of Reference Materials in Business and Economics. An introductory survey of literature is available from publications such as The Literature of Social Sciences and the Sources of Information in the Social Sciences: A Guide to Literature.

Purpose – To explore lines of inquiry by Hayek and C. S. Peirce on sensation and cognition and Hayek's interest in Peirce.

Methodology – To compare Hayek and Peirce's relational interpretations of sensation and cognition.

Research limitations – The theories of both Hayek and Peirce on sensation and cognition are more extensive than can be addressed here. This exploration is more suggestive than comprehensive.

Findings – Both Hayek and Peirce emphasized the relational and abstract nature of human mental processes. Hayek viewed his contribution as overlapping with psychology while Peirce viewed his theory as being logically before psychology.

Social implications – The ideas of Peirce and Hayek imply that the traditional empiricist and rationalist epistemologies of cognition and sensation are limited and incomplete and thus embrace cognitive inefficiencies.

Originality/value of paper – Hayek's brief references and interest in the ideas of C. S. Peirce have not yet been explored to date.