The General Impossibility of Neoclassical Economics

Ben Fine

doi:10.29105/ensayos30.1-1

Autores/as

Ben Fine

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/ensayos30.1-1

Palabras clave:

individualism, holism, mathematical foundations.

Resumen

This article recalls how neo-classical economics prides itself both on its mathematical rigour and on the universal applicability of its principles, and how, on this basis, “economics imperialism” is colonising the subject matter of the other social sciences. Critics of the mainstream have emphasised the conceptual and theoretical weaknesses of reliance upon axiomatic deductivism and methodological individualism of a special type, as well as denying the image that the mainstream has of itself as emulating the natural sciences. In a complementary critique, this article demonstrates, by drawing upon Russell’s logical paradoxes, how results from within mathematics itself, as opposed to its application, impose unnoticed limitations upon the scope and consistency of the mainstream.

JEL Classification: B41.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Akerlof, G. and R. Kranton (2000). “Economics and Identity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3), 715-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554881

Backhouse, R. (1998). “If Mathematics is Informal, Then Perhaps We Should Accept that Economics Must Be Informal Too.” Economic Journal, 108 (451), 1848-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00380

Becker, G. (1996). Accounting for Tastes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674020658

Benacerraf, P. and H. Putnam (1983). “Introduction” in Benacerraf and Putnam (eds) (1983).

________ (eds) (1983). Philosophy of Mathematics: Selected Readings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition revised from (1964), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Blaug, M. (1999). “The Formalist Revolution or What Happened to Orthodox Economics after World War II,” in Backhouse and Creedy (eds).

________ (2001). “No History of Ideas, Please, We’re Economists.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (1), 145-64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.1.145

________ (2003). “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 25 (2), 145-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1042771032000083309

Boolos, G. (1983). “The Iterative Conception of Set,” in Benacerraf and Putnam (eds), reprinted from Journal of Philosophy, 68, 1971, 215-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2025204

Chick, V. and S. Dow (2001). “Formalism, Logic and Reality: A Keynesian Analysis.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 25 (6), 705-721. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/25.6.705

Dasgupta, P. (2002). “Modern Economics and Its Critics,” in Mäki (ed). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493317.004

Davis, J. (2003). The Theory of the Individual in Economics: Identity and Value. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203457689

Debreu, G. (1986). “Theoretic Models: Mathematical Form and Economic Content.” Econometrica, 54 (6), 1259-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1914299

Demsetz, H. (1997). “The Primacy of Economics: An Explanation of the Comparative Success of Economics in the Social Sciences.” Western Economic Association International 1996 Presidential Address, Economic Inquiry, XXXV (1), 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1997.tb01890.x

Dow, S. (1998). “Editorial Introduction to the Formalism in Economics Controversy.” Economic Journal, 108 (451), 1826-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00377

Field, A. (1979). “On the Explanation of Rules Using Rational Choice Models.” Journal of Economic Issues, 13 (1), 49-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.1979.11503610

Fine, B. (1980). Economic Theory and Ideology. London: Edward Arnold.

________ (2009). “The Economics of Identity and the Identity of Economics.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33 (2), 175-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben036

________ and D. Milonakis (2003). “From Principle of Pricing to Pricing of Principle: Rationality and Irrationality in the Economic History of Douglass North.” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 45 (3), 120-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417503000252

________ and D. Milonakis (2009). From Economics Imperialism to Freakonomics: The Shifting Boundaries Between Economics and Other Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

Fine, K. (2006). “Class and Membership,” mimeo, but see Journal of Philosophy, 2005, 102 (11), 547-572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2005102118

Giocoli, N. (2005). “In the Sign of the Axiomatic Method: Mathematics as the Role Model for Neoclassical Economics.” Blanqui Lecture, European Society for the History of Economic Thought, ESHET, Ninth Annual Conference, Stirling, June 9-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.930660

Gödel, K. (1983). “Russell’s Mathematical Logic,” in Benacerraf and Putnam (eds), reprinted from P. Schilpp (ed) (1944), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell, Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern University, 125-53.

Hodgson, G. (2007). “Meanings of Methodological Individualism.” Journal of Economic Methodology, 14 (2), 211-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780701394094

Lucas, R. (1987). Models of Business Cycles. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lukes, S. (1968). “Methodological Individualism Reconsidered.” British Journal of Sociology, 19 (2), 119-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/588689

Moscati, I. (2005). “History of Consumer Demand Theory 1871-1971: A Neo-Kantian Rational Reconstruction.” Università Bocconi, Milan, mimeo.

Mosini, V. (2007). “Introduction: Three Ways of Looking at Equilibrium,” in Mosini (ed). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203086681

_______ (ed) (2007). Equilibrium in Economics - Scope and Limits, London: Routledge.

Peck, J. (2005). “Economic Sociologies in Space.” Economic Geography, 81 (2), 129-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2005.tb00263.x

Putnam, H. (1983). “Mathematics without Foundations,” in Benacerraf and Putnam (eds). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171519.016

Richter, R. (2005). “The New Institutional Economics: Its Start, Its Meaning, Its Prospects.” European Business Organization Law Review, 6 (2), 161-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1566752905001618

Runde, J. (1997). “Keynesian Methodology,” in Harcourt and Riach (eds) (1997).

Russell, B. (1959). My Philosophical Development. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sen, A. (1977). “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6 (3), 317-44.

Stiglitz, J. (1989). “On the Economic Role of the State”, in Heertje (ed) (1989).

Velupillai, K. (2005). “The Unreasonable Ineffectiveness of Mathematics in Economics.” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29 (4), 849-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei084

Wang, H. (1983). “The Concept of Set,” in Benacerraf and Putnam (eds), reprinted from H. Wang, From Mathematics to Philosophy, London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1974, 530-70.

Weintraub, R. (1998). “Controversy: Axiomatisches Mißverständnis.” Economic Journal, 108 (451), 1837-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00379