Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Abstraction as a Mother of Order?
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-4-4-23
Abstract
The article deals with the relation between assumptions of economic theories and their political implications. Two canons of economic science are being analyzed according to the degree of abstraction. A hypothesis is that the more abstract formal canon is connected with a liberal kind of economic policy whereas the more concrete canon presupposes an active state intervention in economic affairs. Several attempts at integrating both canons are studied separately (Marshall, Schumpeter, Eucken). Historic evidence is more or less consistent with the hypothesis stated above, but there happens to be one important exclusion: the general equilibrium theory is so abstract that it can imply opposite policies.
Keywords
economic methodology,
economic policy,
history of economics,
classical political economy,
historical school,
marginalist revolution
JEL: B12; B13; B15; B16; B21; B22; B31; B41
About the Author
V. Avtonomov
National Research University Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Ananyin¬ O. (2013). Economic Onthologies as Objects and Instruments of Knowledge // Ananyin O. (ed.). Theoretical Economics: Onthology and Ethics. Moscow: Institute of Economics, RAS. P. 8—26.
2. Gutnik V. (2002). The Politics of Economic Order in Germany. Moscow: Ekonomika.
3. Dupuit J. (2000). On the Degree of Utility of Public Works // Galperin V. M. (ed.). Milestones of Economic Thought. Theory of Consumer Behaviour and Consumer Demand. Vol. 1. SPb.: Ekonomicheskaya Shkola. P. 28—67.
4. Makarov V. (2012) Outstanding Economist Who Has Grown out of a Great Mathematician // Voprosy Ekonomiki. No 1. P. 42—50.
5. Marshall A. (1993). Principles of Economics. In 3 vols. Moscow: Progress.
6. Mill J. S. (2007). On the Definition of Political Economy and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It // Mill J. S. Principles of Political Economy with Some of their Applications to Social Philosophy. Moscow: Eksmo. P. 985—1023.
7. Reinert E. S. (2011) How Rich Countries Got Rich… And Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. Moscow: HSE Publ.
8. Schumpeter J. A. (2001 [1954]). History of Economic Analysis. St. Petersburg: Economicheskaya shkola.
9. Arthur W. B., Holland J., LeBaron B., Palmer R., Tayler P. (1997). Asset Pricing Under Endogenous Expectations in An Artificial Stock Market // Arthur W. B., Durlauf S., Lane D. (еds.). The Еconomy as an Evolving Complex System II. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
10. Ayres C. (1944). The Theory of Economic Progress. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
11. Blaug M. (2003). The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s // Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Vol. 25, No 2. P. 145—156.
12. Coase R. H. (1994). Essays on Economics and Economists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Dasgupta P. (2002). Modern Economics and Its Critics // Maki U. (ed.). Fact and Fiction in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Jevons W. S. (1888). The Theory of Political Economy. 3rd ed. L.: Macmillan.
15. Kesting P., Vilks A. (2004). Formalism // Davis J. B., Marciano A., Runde J. (eds.). The Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. P. 283—298. Keynes J. N. (1917). The Scope and Method of Political Economy. 4th ed. L.: Macmillan.
16. Lawson T. (1997). Economics and Reality. L.: Routledge. Mayer T. (1993). Truth versus Precision in Economics. Aldershot: Elgar.
17. White L. H. (2012.) The Clash of Economic Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18. Peukert H. (2001). The Schmoller Renaissance // History of Political Economy. Vol. 33, No 1. P. 71—116.
19. Pratten S. (2004). The Conflict Between Formalism and Realisticness in Modern Eco- nomics: the Сase of the New Institutional Economics // Davis J. B., Marciano A., Runde J. (eds.). The Elgar Companion to Economics and Philosophy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. P. 339—363.
20. Ricardo D. (2005). The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. (Ed. by P. Sraffa). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vol. I. Samuelson P. (1967). Economics. 7th ed. N. Y.: McGraw-Hill.
21. Schlefer J. (2012). The Assumptions Economists Make. Cambridge, MA; L.: Belknap Press.
22. Solow R. (1970). Growth Theory: An Exposition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
23. Solow R. (1997). How did economics get that way and what way did it get? // Daedalus. Vol. 126 , No 1. P. 39—58.
24. Sugden R. (2002). The Status of Theoretical Models in Еeconomics // Maki U. (ed.). Fact and Fiction in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 107—136.
25. Walliser B. (2009). Les trois sources de la cumulativitе en economie // Walliser B. (ed.). La cumulativitе du savoir en sciences sociales. Paris: École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales.
26. Weintraub E. R. (2002). How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham, L.: Duke University Press.
27. Whitaker J. K. (ed.) (1996). The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall, Economist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Review
For citations:
Avtonomov V. Abstraction as a Mother of Order? Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2013;(4):4-23. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-4-4-23
Views:
859
Email this article 
