Abstract:The Business School at the University of Hertfordshire (UH) employs approximately 150 academic staff in a state-of-the-art environment located in Hatfield Business Park. It offers 17 undergraduate degree programmes, 21 postgraduate programmes and there are about 80 research students, mostly working at doctoral level. Business School staff are active in research in numerous areas, including complexity theory, institutional economics, economic modelling, efficiency measurement the creative industries, employment… Show more
“…In effect, institutions partly constitute individuals9. Only one of the foregoing is consistent with Bowles' approach, and both variants of methodological individualism identified byHodgson (2007;2011). Gintis' call for the abandonment of methodological individualism presents the opportunity for less reductionist explanations, and hence the greater explanatory richness he seems to seek.…”
mentioning
confidence: 57%
“…carrying one of a limited number of traits interact in either random or structured patterns over periods of time (for example, Bowles, 1998;Gintis, 2000, 2002A;2011. Tournaments may be constructed as simulations in which different behavioural strategies or traits play against one another in applications of games first worked out deductively.…”
Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis have made a broad and sustained contribution to many areas of contemporary economic thought and policy discussions, centring on human interactions in economic settings. Since the mid-1980s, their work, collectively and individually, has developed from a concern with contested exchanges to analyses of behavioural repertoires pursued through evolutionary game theory in which they claim that 'history matters'. Despite their alignment with the mainstream they retain an appeal to some heterodox economists. We argue that this appeal is misplaced. Their theoretical work and knowledge claims rest on methodological individualism and equilibrium reasoning, which fosters an obtuse reductionism. They present a confused methodology, which seems to be motivated by a desire to remain coherent to standard economics. We show how their acceptance of methodological individualism and ergodic modelling undermines their knowledge claims as well as their declaration that history matters in their analysis.
“…In effect, institutions partly constitute individuals9. Only one of the foregoing is consistent with Bowles' approach, and both variants of methodological individualism identified byHodgson (2007;2011). Gintis' call for the abandonment of methodological individualism presents the opportunity for less reductionist explanations, and hence the greater explanatory richness he seems to seek.…”
mentioning
confidence: 57%
“…carrying one of a limited number of traits interact in either random or structured patterns over periods of time (for example, Bowles, 1998;Gintis, 2000, 2002A;2011. Tournaments may be constructed as simulations in which different behavioural strategies or traits play against one another in applications of games first worked out deductively.…”
Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis have made a broad and sustained contribution to many areas of contemporary economic thought and policy discussions, centring on human interactions in economic settings. Since the mid-1980s, their work, collectively and individually, has developed from a concern with contested exchanges to analyses of behavioural repertoires pursued through evolutionary game theory in which they claim that 'history matters'. Despite their alignment with the mainstream they retain an appeal to some heterodox economists. We argue that this appeal is misplaced. Their theoretical work and knowledge claims rest on methodological individualism and equilibrium reasoning, which fosters an obtuse reductionism. They present a confused methodology, which seems to be motivated by a desire to remain coherent to standard economics. We show how their acceptance of methodological individualism and ergodic modelling undermines their knowledge claims as well as their declaration that history matters in their analysis.
“…Generally, Marshall, despite having a general historical sense, which is highlighted by some historians of economic thought, such as Hodgson (2001;2009), but is rightly downgraded by others Milonakis and Fine (2009;2012), was instrumental in the process of the separation of economic history from economic theory. Marshall had, according to Ashley (1891), rehabilitated Ricardo's abstract economic epistemology.…”
The relation between economic theory and history, as is crystallised in the history of economic thought, determined the evolution of economic history proper. The twin events of the Marginalist Revolution and the Methodenstreit were crucial in exiling history from economic theory. Moreover, the dominance of the narrative historiographical paradigm in historiography, till the first decades of the twentieth century, determined the absence of theory from economic history. This twofold hiatus is decisive in the short history of economic history. This paper attempts to delineate this gap by showing that an organic symphysis between economic theory and history is indispensable in the understanding economic phenomena.
“…Marshall'a göre bu toplumsal alan bütünüyle biçimsizdir ve bu nedenle insanların eylemlerinin yığınlaşan birikimini, normalize bir bütüne, ölçülebilir eylemlere göre bu süreçteki asıl etken Batı dünyasında toplumun iktisadi yapısında meydana gelen ani değişimlerdir. Bu dönemde, Charles Darwin'in On The Origin of Spicies (Türlerin Kökeni) (1859) isimli kitabının yayımlanması da hedonist psikolojinin temellerini sarsan en güçlü etkenlerden birisidir ve iktisatçılar biyolojik incelemenin iktisadi sorunlar üzerinde etkisi olduğunu fark etmeye başlamışlardır (Mitchell, 1969: 88-89 Hodgson, 2005Hodgson, , 2011Hutchison, 1988;Raffaelli, 2003;Skidelsky, 1983.…”
Section: Marshall'in Bi̇li̇m Ve İkti̇sat Anlayişiunclassified
Öz Neoklasik iktisadın kurucuları arasında değerlendirilen Alfred Marshall'ın, neoklasik iktisadın diğer önde gelen isimleri olan Léon Walras ve William Stanley Jevons'tan farklı bir iktisat anlayışına sahip olduğu söylenebilir. Zira 'neoklasik iktisat' ifadesini ilk kullanan düşünür olan Thorstein B. Veblen'e (1900) göre bu terim, evrimsel sürecin farkında olan ancak bunu analizlerinde kullanmayan iktisatçıları işaret etmektedir. Bu anlayışın en net olarak görüldüğü isim ise Marshall'dır. Zira Marshall'a göre iktisat değişken, karmaşık ve evrimsel bir yapıya sahiptir ve iktisatçıların örnek alması gereken bilim dalı fizik veya mekanik değil, biyolojidir. Bu doğrultuda, insanın hem toplumsal ve kültürel çevresini, hem de duygularını, sezgilerini, arzularını ve alışkanlıklarını dikkate almayan 'rasyonel iktisadi insan' fikri, bu karmaşık dünyayı açıklama konusunda yetersiz kalmaktadır. Bu nedenle Marshall bu kavramın yerine, insanın toplumsal ve tarihsel bağlamıyla bağlantısını ifade eden 'kanlı-canlı insan' fikrini önermiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı da Marshall'ın ontolojik ve epistemolojik anlayışı doğrultusunda bilimi ve 'iktisat'ı nasıl ele aldığını incelemek ve bu doğrultuda 'kanlı-canlı insan' anlayışının temellerini açığa çıkarabilmektir.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.