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.

A methodological study of religion including moral, ethical, and social values and economics takes us into the search, discovery, and establishment of a formal epistemological premise. Social economics is now studied as a methodological investigation of evolutionary and embedded systems integrating the moral, social, and economic systems. Thus an integrated theory of religion representing the realm of moral and social values and economics is formalized. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The author writes on the conjoint methodological perspective of the integrated domain of religion and economics. A formal ontology of the unified field of religion and economics is established in such an inter-causal and organically unified realm of moral, social, and economic values. A phenomenological model of the unified worldview that applies to a systemic concept of “everything” emerges. This methodology and the immanent phenomenological model relating to it convey the principle of inter-systemic organic symbiosis by a unique and universal worldview.

The systemic integration between religion and economics is formally studied within the immanent system methodology that formalizes inter-disciplinary symbiosis. The result is a new formal model of integration between religion and social economics.

Empirical work can further expand the scope of the paper.

Immense social, ethical, and cross-cultural implications emanate from the study.

The morality and ethical implications of religious values are imputed in the formal model and implications of the social economy.

The paper is of an original nature in establishing the episteme and formalism of integration between ethical and moral values of religion into the structure of the social economy. From this both a theoretical rigor as well as logical formalism can be drawn.

Explicates and analyses selected economic methodologies: praxeology, positivism and institutionalism. Praxeology is a rationalistic methodology which utilizes deductive logic to deduce conclusions concerning economic behavior from postulates, which are self‐evident truths, but praxeologists deny that empirical verification is either necessary or desirable. Positivism is a methodology which combines deductive rationalism as a method of deriving substantive hypotheses and inductive empiricism as a method of verifying these hypotheses. Institutionalism is a pragmatic methodology which is based on an empirical epistemology and which utilizes inductive logic to formulate economic policy and to solve practical problems. Concludes that institutionalism is more empirically relevant than either praxeology or positivism, and that, therefore, institutionalism is superior to the other methodologies.

This paper is concerned with the quantitative/qualitative divide as a particular feature of recent methodological debate in organization research. While substantively this divide is questionable and problematic, it has figured prominently in the so‐called “paradigm wars”. The purpose of this paper is to relate these controversies to a similar debate in economics and draw out the implications of this comparison for the methodological practice of organization research.

The paper takes the form of a conceptual critique.

The paradigms debate can be interpreted as a twentieth‐century instance of the methodenstreit in nineteenth‐century social science, and is argued to resolve along the faultlines of mainline organizational analysis and its periphery. Further methodological progress in the field requires the abandoning of paradigmatic duality in recognition of methodological plurality as a defining feature of organization research.

Management methodology and economic methodology have largely developed as separate literatures alongside each other, with little cross‐fertilisation. This paper links key issues in management methodology to longstanding debates in economic methodology, thereby making progress towards a shared debate on issues of equal significance to both fields of inquiry.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to research on the impact that the creation of value theory has on professional, organizational, and economic performance. However, a special emphasis is on explicating the theoretical foundation of the concept.

This paper is based on a hermeneutic study of the relationship between value creation and managing economic resources. The paper traces the value creation concept to its roots from the foundation of Western Civilization through the value theory of Adam Smith and up to recent technological age advancements in value theory.

Since its emergence the value concept has been explicated in an abundance of literature. However, there has been very little in regards to explanations detailing the theoretical underpinnings of the concept. According to John Stuart Mill, attempts to apply value theory will fail (due to misinformation or inaccurate information) without inclusiveness of the full scope of what is relevant for social science and social economic research.

Although studies on organizational behavior encompass the economic aspects of research economic research tends to be narrower in scope making it difficult to verify some value claims in economic terms. This is especially true in terms of making claims in regards to the connection between economic value theory, social value theory, the Philosophy of Economics, and the Philosophy of Science.

The study introduces a theoretical framework for integrating the value added and value creation concepts as a strategy for increasing shareholder benefits, stakeholder capital, and social capital.

The paper explains how the value creation concept contributes to an increase in wealth, prosperity, flourishing by drawing from a technological age approach to value creation.

The paper fills the void in the literature regarding the theoretical framework of the concept thus undergirds claims about its practical benefits by clarifying its theoretical framework.

This paper presents a theory of the determinants of the methodology of economics. Following the useful distinction made by Papendreou (1958), theory is defined as comprising both a model and a probability statement as to the empirical validity of the model. Accordingly, first a model of the determinants of methodology of economics is presented and, then as an illustration, the model is applied to explain the major issues which have been debated in the recent literature on methodology. The paper concludes with a brief and simplified analysis of the evolution of methodology and some testable hypotheses are presented about the future course of the methodology of economics.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The purpose of this article is to study how the German historical schools are treated in the histories of economic thought as the background for an exploration of some historiographical issues in the history of economic thought.

The study describes the contributions of the members of the German historical schools from a variety of different viewpoints and attitudes toward the history of economic thought.

One conclusion is that several of the things most of the economists of the German historical schools desired are now part of mainstream economics. These include an enlarged scope of economics, changes in the role of the state in economic life, attention to the relationships of law and economics and recognition of the importance of history. Another conclusion is that several historiographical and methodological problems important for the history of economic thought need further study.

The study helps to explain and understand some historiographical aspects of the history of economic thought. It examines practices, principles, theories, methodology and forms of presentation of scholarly historical research on one subject in the history of economic thought.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the application of a hermeneutic-based approach as innovative way to study the Cultural Heritage management in a mesoeconomic space.

The paper builds a theoretical framework based on the analysis of relevant literature in the field of cultural economics, heritage economics and conservation and restoration techniques. Then, after having defined the conceptual hypothesis, a hermeneutical interpretative model is designed for the analysis of the processes of Cultural Heritage management with particular regard to the strategies of stakeholder engagement.

The research shows how the mesoeconomic space is that border area where it is possible to solve more easily the conflicts that arise as a result of the different expectations of stakeholders. Hermeneutical analysis, applied in iterative form, allows us to find common connections, points of contact and convergences between the interpretative horizons of the various stakeholders.

The application of the interpretative model allows the identification of the expectations of stakeholders, improving the knowledge of the tangible and intangible attributes of works of art, in order to design appropriate interventions of restoration, conservation and valorization.

The new model of analysis, based on hermeneutic methodology, is designed to understand and describe the social and economic relations between the different stakeholders involved in the management of Cultural Heritage.

This paper examines for the first time the Cultural Heritage sector within the mesoeconomic area between the micro and the macroeconomy. In addition to this mesoeconomic analysis and conceptual approach, the authors introduce as methodology the economic hermeneutics that represents an innovative tool in the field of economic and business disciplines.

The concepts of complexity, endogeneity and circular causation – Myrdal's term was cumulative causation – are shown to be interrelated ones in configuring an economic model in the framework of systemic embedding and its empirical application.

The ensuing framework of economic modeling with complexity provides a controllable and predictable overarching worldview. Anomie in the economic universe and its embedded world‐system are analytically rejected. This consequence is due to the epistemic nature of modeling that combines complexity, endogeneity, and circular causation for attaining predictability and controllability, even in the face of complex systemic perturbations. The epistemology of unity of knowledge contrasted with rationalism is treated as the foundational worldview. An illustrative empirical work is given to convey the conceptual model and its applied viability.

Both the theoretical and empirical results point out how the induced effects of knowledge flows in reference to the epistemology of unity of knowledge continuously improves the complementary relationships of the evolutionary learning fields, and rejects marginalism as being logically non‐sequiter in such epistemic systems.

More variables and data would increase the explanation of the continuous simulation in the evolutionary learning world‐system model.

More data would increase the versatility of the empirical exercise.

The study is based on the idea of social and economic interface in extending the scope of economic modeling.

The paper is very original in the area of heterodox economics that questions orthodox economic postulates and presents the complex methodology by circular causation method instead.