Economics and psychology in the twenty-first century

Earl, Peter E.

doi:10.1093/cje/bei077

Cited by 41 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, behavioural economics as employed by mainstream apologists adapts ideas and squeezes them it into a predefined model of human behaviour which fits within the fundamental structure of microeconomic theory. Earl (2005) describes the approach as a type of economic imperialism and differentiates it from changing the approach of economics on the basis of psychological insights. Lawson (2009) argues that the problem revealed by the mainstream is due to its insistence on only seriously considering ideas if they can be placed within the frame of deductive mathematical formalism.…”

Section: (Iv) Intermediate and Crossover Positionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?

Spash

2013

Ecological Economics

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecological economics and its policy recommendations have become overwhelmed by economic valuation, shadow pricing, sustainability measures, and squeezing Nature into the commodity boxes of goods, services and capital in order to make it part of mainstream economic, financial and banking discourses. There are deeper concerns which touch upon the understanding of humanity in its various social, psychological, political and ethical facets.The relationship with Nature proposed by the ecological economics movement has the potential to be far reaching. However, this is not the picture portrayed by surveying the amassed body of articles from this journal or by many of those claiming affiliation. A shallow movement, allied to a business as usual politics and economy, has become dominant and imposes its preoccupation with mainstream economic concepts and values. If, instead, ecological economists choose a path deep into the world of interdisciplinary endeavour they will need to be prepared to transform themselves and society. The implications go far beyond the pragmatic use of magic numbers to convince politicians and the public that ecology still has something relevant to say in the 21 st Century.

show abstract

Section: (Iv) Intermediate and Crossover Positionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?

Spash

2013

Ecological Economics

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the Journal of Economic Literature classification. Mainstream economics is then identified as having watered down or changed interdisciplinary research and heterodox concepts in order to make the results fit within and conform to its methodology and ideology (Earl, 2005;Lee, 2009). Fourth, the creation of a clear sense of direction and meaning is made far more difficult.…”

Section: The Case Against Methodological Pluralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

New foundations for ecological economics

Spash

2012

Ecological Economics

214

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…More specifically, the first challenge is "to find and to justify a definition of the domain of [economic theory] which is not vacuous [and] is wide enough for economics to have something useful to say about the real world" (Bruni and Sugden, 2007, 171; see also Bardsley et al, 2010, ch.2). The second challenge is "to find consistency conditions for 'rational' preferences, secure enough to serve as the basis for reliable deductive inferences" (Bruni and Sugden, 2007, 171; see also Earl, 2005).…”

Section: Normative Evaluationmentioning

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

Economics and psychology in the twenty-first century

Cited by 41 publications

References 42 publications

The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?

The shallow or the deep ecological economics movement?

New foundations for ecological economics

Economics, Psychology, and the Unity of the Decision Sciences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About