From Edgeworth to econophysics: a methodological perspective

Drakopoulos, Stavros A.; Katselidis, Ioannis

doi:10.1080/1350178x.2014.1003579

Cited by 20 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…McCauley, 2004;Keen, 2011). Orthodox economists are rather perplexed and undecided as to how to respond to these challenges that originate mainly from their physics-expert colleagues (for an extended discussion, see Drakopoulos and Katselidis, 2015).…”

Section: Physics Envy and The Status Of Economic Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The work of I. Fisher, the popularizer of marginalism and neoclassical economics in the US, was paramount for the general acceptance of the methodological paradigm of 'economics being parallel to physics' (see also Mirowski, 1991;Drakopoulos and Katselidis, 2015). In Fisher's view, the increased formalization combined with the scientific prestige of the methods of physics, would transform economics into a hard science (Fisher, 1892, p.85).…”

Section: The Role Of Irving Fishermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics

Drakopoulos

2016

Journal of Philosophical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The methodological foundations of mainstream economics have been cited as one of the main reasons for its failure to account for the economic crisis of 2008. In spite of this, the status of economic methodology has not been elevated. This is due to the persistent aversion towards methodological discourse by most mainstream economists. The anti-methodology stance has a long presence as exemplified in Frank Hahn’s (1992) work. After focusing on the debate originating after the publication of Hahn’s arguments, the paper offers a categorization of the main explanations for mainstream methodological aversion. Subsequently, it suggests an explanation based on the role of the physics scientific ideal, arguing that the endeavor to achieve the high scientific status of physics by following the methods of physics, contributed to the negative mainstream attitude towards economic methodology. The relevant writings of the extremely influential mainstream economists Irving Fisher and Milton Friedman, reinforce the assertion that the alleged hard science status of economics renders methodological discussions and especially methodological criticism, rather pointless. The paper also calls for a more systematic discussion of this issue, especially in the wake of the line of argument that links the recent failings of mainstream economics to its methodological basis.

show abstract

Section: Physics Envy and The Status Of Economic Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Role Of Irving Fishermentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics

Drakopoulos

2016

Journal of Philosophical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The tendency to separate economics from other social sciences, including psychology, also has to do with the perception of economics as the most advanced of the social sciences, and hence the one that is closest to the physical sciences (see also Drakopoulos and Katselidis, 2015). The dismissal of psychological findings was linked to the effort of establishing the scientific character of economics.…”

Section: Bias Against Incorporating Psychological Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pay Level Comparisons in Job Satisfaction Research and Mainstream Economic Methodology

Drakopoulos

2019

J Happiness Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although social scientists have been investigating the nature and impact of job satisfaction for many decades, economists only started to investigate job satisfaction systematically in the late 1980's. Almost from the first systematic studies of job satisfaction by economists, the research potential of the notion of pay level comparisons was realized. The idea of pay level comparisons in job satisfaction has proven particularly useful also because it has important implications for a number of standard theoretical and economic policy results. However, the inclusion of the variable of comparison wage in job satisfaction and the resulting supporting empirical findings, are in sharp contrast to the orthodox approach, given that in mainstream economic theory an individuals' utility is assumed to be a function of absolute income only. Despite the important theoretical and policy implications, mainstream economic theory has not paid much heed to the job satisfaction conceptual formulations and empirical findings. The paper argues that there are methodological reasons for this state of affairs which seem to be linked to the subjective well-being research in general, and to the job satisfaction literature in particular. A strong mistrust against the method of stated preferences and the inherent methodological bias against the integration of psychological findings, are suggested as the two prime reasons. Although a few prominent figures in job satisfaction research have realized the mainstream methodological attitude, it is necessary that job satisfaction specialists should consider more seriously the basic components of mainstream economic methodology that relate to their research field.

show abstract

“…In addition to these collaborations, some economists have provided a disciplinary reflection on econophysics (Keen, 2003;Rosser, 2008Rosser, , 2010, while other authors (Drakopoulos and Katselidis, 2013;Jovanovic and Schinckus, 2013) tried to enhance common methodological points between the two fields in order to favor the development of an integrative collaboration enhancing a better modeling of complexity and uncertainty as evoked above. However, as Jovanovic and Schinckus (2013) wrote it, an integrative collaboration [5] between these two disciplines requires the elaboration of a common language in order to favor the transfer of meaning in the dialogue.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Duality of knowledge, singularity of method

Schınckus

Akdere

2018

JABES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose How a micro-founded discipline such as economics could deal with the increasing global economic reality? This question has been asked frequently since the last economic crisis that appeared in 2008. In this challenging context, some commentators have turned their attention to a new area of knowledge coming from physics: econophysics which mainly focuses on a macro-analysis of economic systems. By showing that concepts used by econophysicists are consistent with an existing economic knowledge (developed by J.S. Mill), the purpose of this paper is to claim that an interdisciplinary perspective is possible between these two communities. Design/methodology/approach The authors propose a historical and conceptual analysis of the key concept of emergence to emphasize the potential bridge between econophysics and economics. Findings Six methodological arguments will be developed in order to show the existence of conceptual bridges as a necessary condition for the elaboration of a common language between economists and econophysics which would not be superfluous, in this challenging context, to clarify the growing complexity of economic phenomena. Originality/value Although the economics and econophysics study same the complex economic phenomena, very few collaborations exist between them. This paper paves a conceptual/methodological path for more collaboration between the two fields.

show abstract

From Edgeworth to econophysics: a methodological perspective

Cited by 20 publications

References 62 publications

Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics

Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics

Pay Level Comparisons in Job Satisfaction Research and Mainstream Economic Methodology

Duality of knowledge, singularity of method

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About