Disciplining Boundaries: Lionel Robbins, Max Weber, and the Borderlands of Economics, History, and Psychology

Maas, Harro

doi:10.1017/s1053837209990289

Cited by 21 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…attempt[ed] to define economics in terms of the autonomous, deductive investigation of the relation between scarce means and given ends''. A similar view that Robbins intended to separate economics from history and psychology can be found in Maas (2009), or Sánchez-Robles (1994. 9 In this sense, it is easy to show that much of the work currently done in modern (especially micro) economic theory deals with topics that thirty or forty years ago would have been considered to be outside the field and, consequently, inaccessible to the tools and the methods used by this science.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

A New View on Robbins's Definition of Economics: the Notions of Real and Formal Scarcity

Falgueras-Sorauren

2017

Cuadernos de Economía

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses Robbins's famous definition of economics. It shows that this definition was introduced by the author to solve long-standing problems regarding the subjectmatter of the science that were associated with some of the existing definitions. The article also draws attention to some confusion that surrounds the way Robbins understood the (new) subject-matter and which also slid into his definition. To escape the ambiguities caused by Robbins's confusion, we propose a more precise way of understanding the subject-matter of economics. The insight gained reveals that Robbins's definition really contains two sub-definitions: one that describes the subject-matter (real scarcity) and another that describes the method of the science (formal scarcity). This finding sheds light on some analyses and interpretations of this definition in the literature.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

A New View on Robbins's Definition of Economics: the Notions of Real and Formal Scarcity

Falgueras-Sorauren

2017

Cuadernos de Economía

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Backhouse andMedema, 2009, andMaas, 2009). Two sets of demarcation criteria have been especially prominent among leading economists.…”

Section: The Domain Of Economic Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics, Psychology, and the Unity of the Decision Sciences

Fumagalli

2015

Philosophy of the Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, several authors have reconstructed the relationship between 20 th century economic theory and neuro-psychological research in terms of a threestage narrative of initial unity, increasing separation and ongoing reunification. In this article, I draw on major developments in economic theory and neuropsychological research to provide a descriptive and normative critique of this reconstruction. Moreover, I put forward a reconstruction of the relationship between economics and neuro-psychology that, I claim, better fits both the available empirical evidence and the methodological foundations of these disciplines. In doing so, I argue that recent calls to develop a unified interdisciplinary framework for modelling choice are premised on disputable presuppositions concerning both the domain of economic theory and the relationship between this theory's axiomatic foundations and empirical findings about the neuro-psychological substrates of choice.Keywords: Economic Theory; Psychology; Interdisciplinary Unification; Rational Choice; Neuroeconomics. Word Count: 7287 2 IntroductionThe philosophical and methodological literature on the relationship between 20 th century economic theory and neuro-psychological research has grown remarkably during the last three decades (see e.g. Earl, 1990, Giocoli, 2003, Hands, 2010, and Hausman, 1992. Several authors (e.g. Bruni and Sugden, 2007, Camerer and Loewenstein, 2004, and Lewin, 1996 have reconstructed this relationship in terms of the following three-stage narrative (henceforth, the 'standard view'). First, we find an early period of unity, going approximately from the marginal revolution in the 1870s to the 1910s, during which neoclassical economic theory was grounded on psychological foundations. Second, there is a phase of increasing separation, prompted by developments in ordinal utility theory and revealed preference theory, culminated in the 1950s with the elimination of psychological findings, constructs and methods from mainstream economic theory. Finally, the systematic violations of mainstream economic theory documented since the 1950s fostered an ongoing reunification between economics and neuro-psychology, which builds on advances in behavioural, experimental and neuroeconomics to provide a unified interdisciplinary framework for modelling choice. The idea is that economists and neuropsychologists can and should draw on a common set of findings, constructs and methods to model choice (see e.g. Gintis, 2004, Glimcher and Rustichini, 2004, Lewin, 1996, and Rabin, 1998.In this article, I draw on major developments in economic theory and neuropsychological research to provide a descriptive and normative critique of this standard view. Moreover, I put forward a reconstruction of the relationship between economics and neuro-psychology that, I claim, better fits both the available empirical evidence and the methodological foundations of these disciplines. I shall argue for three claims of general interest to the philosophers and the practitioners of ...

show abstract

“…Robbins’ definition confines economics to the study of human behavior, he sought to distinguish economics from the natural sciences, and he firmly opposed attempts to “vivisect the economic agent” (Maas, 2009). …”

Section: Robbins’ Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At first glance, this formulation seems a dry and inauspicious note on which to launch a discussion of the behavioral and neurobiological study of economic decision making in animals. Robbins’ definition confines economics to the study of human behavior, he sought to distinguish economics from the natural sciences, and he firmly opposed attempts to “vivisect the economic agent” (Maas, 2009 ).…”

Section: Robbins’ Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scarce Means with Alternative Uses: Robbins’ Definition of Economics and Its Extension to the Behavioral and Neurobiological Study of Animal Decision Making

Shizgal¹

2012

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Almost 80 years ago, Lionel Robbins proposed a highly influential definition of the subject matter of economics: the allocation of scarce means that have alternative ends. Robbins confined his definition to human behavior, and he strove to separate economics from the natural sciences in general and from psychology in particular. Nonetheless, I extend his definition to the behavior of non-human animals, rooting my account in psychological processes and their neural underpinnings. Some historical developments are reviewed that render such a view more plausible today than would have been the case in Robbins’ time. To illustrate a neuroeconomic perspective on decision making in non-human animals, I discuss research on the rewarding effect of electrical brain stimulation. Central to this discussion is an empirically based, functional/computational model of how the subjective intensity of the electrical reward is computed and combined with subjective costs so as to determine the allocation of time to the pursuit of reward. Some successes achieved by applying the model are discussed, along with limitations, and evidence is presented regarding the roles played by several different neural populations in processes posited by the model. I present a rationale for marshaling convergent experimental methods to ground psychological and computational processes in the activity of identified neural populations, and I discuss the strengths, weaknesses, and complementarity of the individual approaches. I then sketch some recent developments that hold great promise for advancing our understanding of structure–function relationships in neuroscience in general and in the neuroeconomic study of decision making in particular.

show abstract

Disciplining Boundaries: Lionel Robbins, Max Weber, and the Borderlands of Economics, History, and Psychology

Cited by 21 publications

References 31 publications

A New View on Robbins's Definition of Economics: the Notions of Real and Formal Scarcity

A New View on Robbins's Definition of Economics: the Notions of Real and Formal Scarcity

Economics, Psychology, and the Unity of the Decision Sciences

Scarce Means with Alternative Uses: Robbins’ Definition of Economics and Its Extension to the Behavioral and Neurobiological Study of Animal Decision Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About