A ortodoxia econômica contemporânea tem uma relação dual com a metodologia: ao mesmo tempo em que não debate temas relacionados ao método, nega reconhecimento a quem não segue a sua “metodologia oficial”. Este artigo tem por objetivo enfatizar a importância dos austríacos liderarem o debate metodológico em Economia, destacando suas críticas ao positivismo e defendendo sua própria postura metodológica, que é muito próxima à tradição clássica. É tratado também da inserção do positivismo em Economia, em que são colocados os problemas epistemológicos desta análise e a crítica dos austríacos. Por fim, coloca-se uma proposta de postura metodológica para a EA com o objetivo de ampliar o diálogo com a ortodoxia e permitir uma crítica externa a ela.
This article explores a debate on the theory of cost that occurred in the 1890s between economist Silas MacVane and Austrian economists. MacVane defended the idea of objective “real cost” and the Austrians argued for subjective opportunity cost. Although this debate is rarely mentioned, it represents a noteworthy episode of active contrast between ideas on value and on cost, with implications that are relevant for contemporary economists. By highlighting the incompatibility of the objective and subjective conceptions of cost, this debate sheds light on the evolution of economic theory. The contributions of relatively unknown authors, such as MacVane and David Green, are also discussed. We interpret the debate in terms of the contrast between research programs based on wealth and on exchange, and note that the gradual shift in the period regarding the fundamental problem that informs economic theory is key to understanding the modern concept of cost.
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.