Foundations for New Economic Thinking

Dow, Sheila C.

doi:10.1057/9781137000729

Cited by 46 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 99 publications

(250 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather than a partial representation of reality, the mainstream paradigm embraces numerous “idealized assumptions” that imply the nonexistence of a factor regardless of its effect in the real world; rather than “false of anything,” such assumptions are “applicable to nothing actual” (Nagel 1963: 215; Rappaport 1996: 2018–2219). Preventing the identification of underlying causal mechanisms, idealized assumptions characterize mainstream methodology, which is suited to a closed system whose boundaries, constituent variables, and their interrelationships are predetermined and known (Chick and Dow 2005; Dow 2003: 13; Dow 2012: 130).…”

Section: The Mainstream Paradigm: Beliefs Practices and Commitmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradigm Change or Assimilation? The Case of Behavioral Economics

Tzotzes

Milonakis

2020

Review of Radical Political Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of Thomas Kuhn’s view that paradigm change requires the existence of an alternative paradigm, this inquiry examines whether behavioral economics provides a foundation for change in economics. Drawing on Kuhn’s account of normal science that integrates science as a social system and a system of ideas, it critically examines the institutional and conceptual standing of behavioral economics relative to the mainstream paradigm and the alternative proposed by radical political economics with a view to assess the extent and the quality of change behavioral economics can impart to the dominant tradition of normal science in economics.

show abstract

Section: The Mainstream Paradigm: Beliefs Practices and Commitmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Paradigm Change or Assimilation? The Case of Behavioral Economics

Tzotzes

Milonakis

2020

Review of Radical Political Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Contemporary economics has been subject to widespread critique (e.g. Boyer, 2013;Dow, 2012;Fine, 2013;Fullbrook, 2009;Lawson, 2015;Harcourt, 2010;Hodgson, 2009;Sawyer, 2011). One widely acknowledged aspect of this critique is that the history of economic thought and the methodology and philosophy of economics are no longer typical constituents of an economics education (e.g.…”

Section: The Significance Of Social Ontology As a Response To The Stamentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrast explanation in economics: its context, meaning, and potential

Morgan

Patomäki²

2017

Cambridge Journal of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we place Tony Lawson's account of contrast explanation in context. Lawson's development of it is given meaning both by the roots of the approach in his work on social ontology and the state of economics that provides the grounds for the critique contained in that social ontology. This is important because such an approach to explanation is not new. Most notably van Fraassen and Garfinkel have developed it in particular ways and for particular purposes within the philosophy of science and social theory. Setting out the different ways in which the contrastive approach has been developed is useful for identifying what is different about Lawson's approach, its potential and limits. Lawson's proposal is more modest and focusses on causal investigation in a manner that flows from his approach to social ontology. Contrast explanation provides a substitute for controlled experiments and facilitates identifying social mechanisms. It also enables exploration of the manifold presuppositions of our explanatory questions. We argue that this is a useful and important contribution to overcoming some of the many problems economics faces.

show abstract

“…The crisis has thus created a good opportunity to discuss the partly arbitrary character of mainstream economic ideas and, to this extent, their conventionality. Even before the recent crisis, there were a few eminent critics of excessive formalization, including older Nobel laureates (for some examples, see Lawson 2006, Hodgson 2009, Dow 2012 and later authors, such as Blinder (1999). 25 Other criticisms have also been made.…”

Section: Conventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Some institutions (social norms and conventions) of contemporary mainstream economics, macroeconomics and financial economics

Dequech

2017

Cambridge Journal of Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foundations for New Economic Thinking

Cited by 46 publications

References 99 publications

Paradigm Change or Assimilation? The Case of Behavioral Economics

Paradigm Change or Assimilation? The Case of Behavioral Economics

Contrast explanation in economics: its context, meaning, and potential

Some institutions (social norms and conventions) of contemporary mainstream economics, macroeconomics and financial economics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About