A Critique of Friedman's Methodological Instrumentalism

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Southern Economic Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Southern Economic Journal. I. IntroductionMilton Friedman's 1953 classic, "The Methodology of Positive Economics," is probably the best-known piece of methodological writing in the discipline [9]. It is also a marketing masterpiece. Never before has one short article on methodology been able to generate so much controversy. It was reviewed often, usually negatively. Yet ironically, the methodological prescriptions advanced in his essay have been accepted by many working economists. And this has happened without Friedman ever having directly responded to his critics! The most recent contribution to the secondary literature is Lawrence Boland's piece, "A Critique of Friedman's Critics" [4, 503-22]. Boland argues that Friedman's methodology is best understood as a variant of the philosophical position known as instrumentalism, and that ifFriedman is so interpreted, many critiques of his position existent in the economic literature miss their mark. While these points are well-taken, Boland states in his conclusion that "no one has been able to criticize or refute instrumentalism" [4, 521]. Such a statement leaves the reader with the impression that Friedman's position is not only untouched, but perhaps even vindicated. It is the purpose of this paper to challenge such a conclusion by critiquing Friedman's methodological instrumentalism. In the next section, some brief comments on definitional and interpretive issues are followed by a restatement of Friedman's position. Sections III, IV, and V contain the core of the criticisms against Friedman's methodological instrumentalism, from both philosophical and methodological perspectives. A conclusion emphasizes the importance of this debate for the critical methodological question of how theory choice is effected in economics.

Are Students Really Rational? The Development of Rational Thought and its Application to Student Choice

“…For instance, Boland (1979) notes that most critics do not attack Friedman' s instrumentalist foundation (for an exception see Caldwell, 1980). Boland thinks this is because instrumentalism ''presents certain obstacles to every critic.…”

Understanding Unemployment in the Era of Big Data: Policy Informed by Data-Driven Theory

“…In 1953, Milton Friedman published an influential essay on The Methodology of Positive Economcs (Friedman, 1953) that became highly controversial (Caldwell, 1980). In it, he argues that the realism of the underlying assumptions of a theory can be judged independently of the validity of its predictions.…”

On Acting and Knowing: How Pragmatism Can Advance International Relations Research and Methodology

“…and that knowledge about that reality is constituted by shared interpretations of such practice~social epistemology!, we are compelled to admit that such interpretations must rest on some form of consensus+ 22+ Social scientific knowledge cannot be primarily an instrument for prediction, since prediction without understanding is meaningless; see the discussion of Friedman 1953 in Boland 1979;and in Caldwell 1980+ …”