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.

This paper aims to argue that Economics is not a neutral science.

Post-structuralist perspective of Lyotard (1984), alongside the Pragmatics of Searle (1979) and Travis (1981) are useful for analyzing enunciations in mainstream Economics.

Economists use illocutionary acts expressed in formal language to achieve perlocutionary effects. Because of the importance attached to objectivity in mainstream Economics, the use of artificial languages is preferred to natural language. However, formal language is preferred regarding its perlocutionary effects on economists' community.

This paper puts together the Continental and the Analytical Philosophy and show, in an original manner, how their intersections and how they can be useful to better understand the epistemology of Economics.

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.

The paper aims to show that economic theory has become “desocialised” and separated from social theory through the adoption of individualistic methods and neglect of social relations and structures. It also seeks to assess the upshot of these trends, as well as the prospects for reversing them.

A historical overview traces how the social content of economic theory has diminished, considering the reasons why. This leads on to a wider evaluation of what desocialisation entails and whether economics could be done differently.

Desocialisation stems from the desire for boundaries between academic disciplines, which drove economics towards individualism and other social sciences towards structural methods. Such an artificial divide between economic theory and social theory is argued to be detrimental to all the disciplines concerned.

Restrictions imposed by desocialised theory have practical consequences for how we understand and model the economy. Some reforms that would loosen the restrictions so as to promote a resocialised economics are suggested.

The idea of desocialisation is defined and interpreted, drawing attention to the changing nature of economics, its isolation from other social sciences, and the possibilities for alternative modes of economic theorising.

In the fall of 1996, Walstad suggested that the economics profession needed to obtain the students' perspective on the choice of major. The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that influence the choice of major.

To recruit majors and to address Walstad's concern, economics and non‐economics majors were surveyed to determine which factors they consider important when choosing a major and to better understand why some students never consider economics.

The results suggest that interest in the subject, expected marketability, performance in major classes, and the approachability and teaching reputation of the faculty are influential to the choice of major.

The results may help the profession address enrollment issues, including the disproportionate number of women in the major.

Mainstream economists now consider their discipline to be a technical one that is free from ethical concerns. I argue that this view only arose in the twentieth century. In this paper I set out a brief history of economics as a moral science. First, I sketch the evolution of economics before Adam Smith, showing that it was generally (with the exception of the mercantilists) conceived of as a part of moral philosophy. Second, I present elements of the new interpretation of Smith, which show him as a developer of economics as a moral science. Third, I show that even after Smith, up to the beginning of the twentieth century, a number of leading economic theorists envisioned economics as a moral science, either in theory or in practice. Fourth, I sketch the decline of economics as a moral science. The key factor was the emergence and influence of positivism. Overall, I show that the current view of the detachment of economics from morals is alien to much of the history of the discipline.