Search results

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.

The rediscovery and analytical reconstitution are present tendencies in much of social science, especially economics and sociology. The emergence and expansion of the so‐called new institutional economics exemplify these tendencies as do attempts at revival and rehabilitation of the old institutional economics. Analogous tendencies have been manifested in sociology by the further development of economic sociology, especially by various reformulations of its classical premise of institutional structuration and embeddedness of economic behavior. Nevertheless, much of mainstream economics tends to neglect or play down certain salient divergences between the latter's neoclassical or orthodox institutionalism, and heterodox or critical institutionalism advanced by the old institutional economics as well as by economic sociology. Identifies and elaborates such divergences between these seemingly homologous varieties of institutionalism. Since institutionalist varieties and tendencies in both economics and sociology are considered, represents a contribution to an interdisciplinary treatment of social institutions, a treatment originally proposed by the old institutional economics of Veblen et al., the German historical school as well as by Weberian‐Durkheimian classical economic sociology.

Dan Hammond’s written comments on a paper I presented at the ASSA/HES meetings in January on Chicago economics and institutionalism (Hammond, 2003; Rutherford, 2003a) questioned the usefulness of the concept of “institutional economics” as a category with which to discuss the history of American economics from about 1918 on. My paper and Hammond’s comments form the background to this roundtable discussion. Although my original piece is not reproduced here, I will begin with some direct comments on what I take to be Hammond’s main points of contention.

The purpose of this paper is to critically assess the assumptions regarding human behaviour in orthodox neoclassical economic theory. The orthodox neoclassical economic theory prescribes rational models of human behaviour, but the strictness of the criteria, developed to promote theoretical consistency and conceptual elegance, commonly fails to fully accommodate all of the empirical material. To save the core of the orthodox neoclassical economic theory research program and to neutralize and mute criticism regarding its predictive failures, its proponents engage in expedient theorizing, the expansion of the initial theoretical framework by adding ad hoc hypotheses and/or including additional explanatory factors; in many cases, dismissed as “unnecessary complications” (as in the case of morality and ethics – two conspicuously “non-economic” concepts) in the initial formulation of theoretical propositions of the core theories.

The paper reviews a body of heterogeneous literature to introduce and examine the use of expedient theorizing in economic thinking.

In the present case, the hyperrationalist axiom regarding the efficacy of calculative practices to maximize individual utility is accompanied by moralist concerns (and, by implication, corrective and disciplinary action) regarding the failure to adhere to such prescriptions. Expedient theorizing, thus, becomes a key mechanism in the political economy of truth that currently grants orthodox neoclassical economic theory significant authority to inform policy-making in substantial ways and considerable prestige.

The orthodox neoclassical economic theory constitutes the blueprint for policy-making and institutional change, and, therefore, the key economic ideas being the constitutive elements of the contemporary economy demand scholarly attention. The paper thus points at theoretical inconsistencies in the orthodox neoclassical economic theory and introduces the concept of expedient theorizing as its remedy.

This article attempts to provide an institutionalist analysis and diagnosis of the current crisis of orthodox economics. We shall, first, characterise the predominant opinion in economics—the neoclassical synthesis. Next, we examine the anomalies which are currently vexing orthodox opinion and their power to provoke a period of crisis and extraordinary science. In the final section, we diagnose the source of the anomalies of the neoclassical synthesis.

Present‐day economics is characterised by the fragmentary and reductionist approach that typifies most social sciences. Economists generally fail to recognise that the economy is merely one aspect of a whole ecological and social fabric; a living system composed of human beings in continual interaction with one another and with their natural resources, most of which are, in turn, living organisms. The basic error of the social sciences is to divide this fabric in fragments, assumed to be independent and to be dealt with in separate academic departments (Capra, 1982, pp. 194–5).

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.

Despite its all‐encompassing title this article aims to offer a number of pointers to a Christian critique of the methodological basis of orthodox (or broadly speaking neoclassical) economics. The contention for which the author aims to offer some justification is that that methodological basis is such that it has historically “loaded” the analytical and predictive “dice” in favour of the capitalist or so‐called free market system. By exploring the way in which economic analysis has evolved into a subject that claims to be “positive” (meaning ethically neutral, or free from subjective valuation), we question both the desirability of such a characteristic, and if indeed orthodox economics has succeeded in achieving it. The nature of this alleged “positivist fallacy” is such that the predictive ability of conventional economic analysis is to be brought severely into doubt and, in the present author's opinion, justifies an approach to economics based on unashamedly normative Biblical principles (as for example attempted by Hay and Kent).

Addresses the question: “Are Christian values reflected in contemporary American economic ethics?” Compares the ethics dictated by neoclassical production theory with the Christian production values found in Pope John Paul II′s encyclical, Laborem Exercens . The encyclical rejects the notion that output is the primary goal of production. The implication is that neoclassical production theory is necessary, but not sufficient. Public policy in the United States has long been based on neoclassical production theory. In the last decade, the downsizing and restructuring of production has heightened emphasis on neoclassical production efficiencies. During this period, prevailing economic ethics were largely in conflict with Christian values. The fledgling policy initiatives of the Clinton administration suggest a commitment to reshape policy in ways which more positively incorporate a number of the reforms suggested by Laborem Exercens. If a new economic (production) ethic evolves out of these commitments, the compatibility between economic ethics and Christian values will be greater a decade from now.