Although most of the marginalist economists' methodology was influenced by 19th century classical physics, the work of second generation marginalist Francis Ysidro Edgeworth represents the highest point of classical physics influence to the development of mainstream economic methodology. Edgeworth's close parallelism between celestial and social mechanics expressed in his analogies between utility and energy and the principle of utility maximization to maximum energy, are important indications of the physics scientific ideal for economics. Subsequent leading theorists were not as explicit, although economic theory continued to be influenced by physics scientific ideal as the work of Pareto, Fisher and Samuelson indicates. However, the physics methodological framework has made a recent reappearance in the relatively new field of econophysics. Although there are methodological similarities, there are also important differences between mainstream economics and econophysics. Econophysicists' emphasis to statistical mechanics rather to mechanical models, their reservations towards rational agent theory and their rejection of many standard assumptions of mainstream economics, are examples of such differences. This might also explain the resistance of mainstream economic theorists to incorporate econophysics into economics. The paper examines the above from a methodological viewpoint. It also discusses the possible reasons for this historical development and its implications for economic methodology.
This article compares Schumpeter, Veblen, and Commons with regard to institutions setting up the paradigm of institutional evolutionary economics. Their theories are of a complex nature, and as such, it is very difficult to situate them in a clear‐cut tradition. The main similarity is their opposition to the thesis that market economy is an independent and self‐regulating system, in an attempt to integrate economic, sociological, and political perspectives with regard to the functioning of the system. Also, change per se is in contrast to the notion of equilibrium. Of course, despite the parallels, the existence of differences is undeniable.
PurposeThe main goal of this paper is to provide us with a more systematic framework for examining the moral background of markets.Design/methodology/approachThe paper makes an attempt to put forward a way of market evaluation relying upon the three major moral theories of utilitarianism, deontology (Kantianism) and virtue ethics. Specifically, by using these three basic pillars, an “evaluation triangle” is constructed in order to examine various crucial moral aspects of markets' functioning.FindingsThe paper examines some significant distortions with respect to the three above-mentioned triangle's sides, using also examples from the real world. The paper also discusses the main findings from the previous analysis, stressing also emphasis on some crucial factors with respect to the triangle's functioning, such as the role of culture and time.Originality/valueMainstream economic theory, with a very few exceptions, does not acknowledge the interwovenness of economic behavior and morality, adopting the fact/value dichotomy underlying modern science. Accordingly, most economists usually avoid answering questions concerning ethical topics. The market system, however, has a direct effect on our everyday lives, so it is crucial that a systematic method of moral assessment can be proposed. Thus, this paper seeks to promote the dialogue with respect to the interconnection between economic and moral issues.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.