Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Where is the nostalgic empiricism of the new new institutionalists leading economics?
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2025-12-5-31
Abstract
The article provides a critical analysis of the main cliches and stereotypes surrounding modern economics. Using the work of the 2024 Nobel laureates D. Acemoglu, S. Johnson, and J. Robinson (AJR) as a case study, it is demonstrated that the modern mainstream economics does not conform to the numerous caricatures still drawn of it by critics. It is argued that the popularity of these economists is due not so much to the originality of their approaches, but rather to their excellent command of rhetorical techniques, which allows them to successfully communicate with different audiences and create compelling narratives for them. The authors highlight three contentious features of AJR’s research style:
(1) compensating for a lack of theoretical novelty through empirical testing of already known historical “cases”; (2) offering an excessively liberal interpretation of the works of their predecessors; (3) suppressing research results from other scholars that are inconvenient for their interpretations. It is shown that the narrative of empirical rigor in their ideas, skillfully promoted by AJR, is, on the one hand, in tune with the challenges of the time, and on the other hand, deprives the subject area of economics of its distinctiveness, making it hardly distinguishable from other disciplines.
About the Authors
A. A. Maltsev
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander A. Maltsev
Moscow
A. E. Shastitko
Lomonosov Moscow State University;
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey E. Shastitko
Moscow
References
1. Ananyin O. I. (2024). Economic science: The challenge of fragmentation. Journal of the New Economic Association, No. 2, pp. 193—210. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31737/22212264_2024_2_193-210
2. Arslanov V. V. (2016). Geography, institutions, and the origins of global inequality: Criticism of the concept of economic development of Aсemoglu and Robinson (scientific report). Moscow: Institute of Economics RAS. (In Russian).
3. Auzan A. A., Maltsev A. A., Kurdin A. A. (2023). Russian economic education: Image of the near future. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 10, pp. 5—26. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-10-5-26
4. Volynskii A. I. (2020). Pan-institutionalism and economic reforms. Voprosy Teoreticheskoi Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 21—30. (In Russian).
5. Drogobytsky I. N. (2016). Behavioral economics: Science or exoticism? World of New Economy, No. 3, pp. 94—105. (In Russian).
6. Zaostrovtsev A. P. (2014). On the development and backwardness: How do economists explain history? St. Petersburg: European University at St. Petersburg Publ. (In Russian).
7. Ionin L. (2012). The revolt of the minorities. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Universitetskaya Kniga. (In Russian).
8. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2013). Behavioral economics and new paternalism (Part I). Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 9, pp. 66—90. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2013-9-66-90
9. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2018). On current state of economics: Subjective semi-sociological observations. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 110—128. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-5-110-128
10. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2019). Contra paninstitutionalism. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).
11. Kapeliushnikov R. I. (2022). The randomistas: New development economics. Moscow: HSE Publ. (In Russian).
12. Coase R., Wang N. (2016). How China became capitalist. Moscow: Novoe Izdatelstvo. (In Russian).
13. Libman A. M. (2023). Interdisciplinary research and mixed methods: Perspectives and limitations. Voprosy Teoreticheskoi Ekonomiki, No. 3, pp. 35—48. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2023_3_35_48
14. Maltsev A. A. (2020). Whither history of economic thought: A perspective from Russian and international scholars. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 9, pp. 94—119. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-9-94-119
15. Maltsev A. A. (2022). Cinderella or princess: Past and present of economic history. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 11, pp. 24—56. (In Russian). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-11-24-56
16. Maltsev A. A. (2023). Peter the Great and interdisciplinary synthesis. Lomonosov Economics Journal, No. 2, pp. 3—19. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0130-0105-6-58-2-1
17. Maltsev A. A., Rozinskaya N. A. (2021). Theory without measurement or some finishing touches on the creative portrait of Douglass North. Journal of Institutional Studies, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 71—90. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2021.13.4.071-090
18. Medema S. (2021). The economics book. From Xenophon to сryptocurrency. 250 major milestones in the history of economics. Moscow: Laboratoriya Znanii. (In Russian).
19. Orekhovsky P. A. (ed.) (2022). The cognitive structures and political economy of socialism in the USSR. St. Petersburg: Aleteiya. (In Russian).
20. Raskov D. E. (2023). The rhetoric of institutional economics. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ. (In Russian).
21. Tambovtsev V. L. (2021). Methodology of the new institutional economics: Do we all mean the same? Voprosy Teoreticheskoi Ekonomiki, No. 3, pp. 52—74. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.52342/2587-7666VTE_2021_3_52_74
22. Tutov L. A., Shastitko A. E. (2021). Metalanguage within disciplinary discourse for scientific research programs: Invitation to a debate. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 4, pp. 96—115. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2021-4-96-115
23. Shastitko A. E. (2020). Between the Scylla of despotism and the Charybdis of social norms (On the book by D. Acemoglu and J. Robinson “Narrow corridor: States, societies and the fate of freedom”). Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 145—156. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2020-1-145-156
24. Shastitko A. E. (2024). Economic education as a mirror of interdisciplinary discourse. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 1, pp. 137—153. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2024-1-137-153
25. Acemoglu D. (2012). Daron Acemoglu (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). In: S. W. Bowmaker (ed.). The art and practice of economics research. Lessons from leading minds. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 1—19.
26. Acemoglu D. (2023). Would AI-enabled communism work? Project Syndicate, June 28. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ai-central-planning-versus-decentralization-by-daron-acemoglu-2023-06
27. Acemoglu D. (2024). If democracy isn’t pro-worker, it will die. Project Syndicate, June 20. https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/us-eu-democracy-challenges-reflect-disappointing-economic-growth-and-wage-trends-by-daron-acemoglu-2024-06
28. Acemoglu D., Ajzenman N., Aksoy C. G., Fiszbein M., Molina C. (2025). (Successful) democracies breed their own support. Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 92, No. 2, pp. 621—655. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdae051
29. Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J. (2004). Institutions as the fundamental cause of long-run growth. NBER Working Paper, No. 10481. https://doi.org/10.3386/ w10481
30. Acemoglu D., Johnson S., Robinson J. (2005). The rise of Europe: Atlantic trade, institutional change, and economic growth. American Economic Review, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp. 546—579. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201305
31. Acemoglu D., Robinson J. (2022). Non-modernization: Power-culture trajectories and the dynamics of political institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 25, pp. 323—339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-103913
32. Albouy D. Y. (2012). The colonial origins of comparative development: An empirical investigation. Comment. American Economic Review, Vol. 102, No. 6, pp. 3059—3076. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.6.3059
33. Ambrosino A., Cedrini M., Davis J. B. (2024). Today’s economics: One, no one and one hundred thousand. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 59—76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2023.2238857
34. Ang Y. Y. (2024). The 2024 Nobel Laureates are not only wrong about China, but also about the West. SOAS, October 31. https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blogs/2024-nobel-laureates-are-not-only-wrong-about-china-also-about-west
35. Austin G. (2008). The “reversal of fortune” thesis and the compression of history: Perspectives from African and comparative economic history. Journal of International Development, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 996—1027. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1510
36. Barnett W. A. (2004). An interview with Paul Samuelson. Macroeconomic Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 519—542. https://doi.org/10.1017.S1365100504040039
37. Bergin T. (2022). The wordly turn. AEON, January 13. https://aeon.co/essays/economics-is-once-again-becoming-a-worldly-science
38. Biddle J. E., Hamermesh D. S. (2017). Theory and measurement: Emergence, consolidation, and erosion of a consensus. History of Political Economy, Vol. 49, Supplement, pp. 34—57. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-4166251
39. Boettke P. (2020). The four pillars of economic understanding. Great Barrington: American Institute for Economic Research.
40. Boettke P., Leeson P., Smith D. (2008). The evolution of economics: Where we are and how we got here. Long Term View, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 14—22.
41. Boyer P., Petersen M. (2018). Folk-economic beliefs: An evolutionary cognitive model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 41, article e158. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X17001960
42. Bühlmann F., Christesen C. A., Cousin B., Denord F., Ellersgaard C., Lagneau-Ymonet P., Grau Larsen A., Savage M., Thine S., Young K. L., Araujo P., Arrigoni P., Atria J., Benz P., Behr J., do Carmo Botelho M., Butt A., Casanova P., Clemente-Casinhas L., Yu X. (2025). Varieties of economic elites? Preliminary results from the world elite database (WED). British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 76. No. 3, pp. 663—673. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13203
43. Caspari V. (2022). A history of economics: The co-evolution of economics and the economy. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-70177-5
44. Cioni M., Federico G., Vasta M. (2022). Persistence studies: A new kind of economic history? Review of Regional Research, Vol. 42, pp. 227—248. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10037-022-00167-0
45. Colander D. (2007). The making of an economist, redux. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt7rnvr
46. Colander D. (2017). Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
47. Coyle D. (2012). The paradox of popularity in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 187—192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2012.714141
48. Cruz-e-Silva V., Cavalieri M. (2022). Patterns of interdisciplinary citations and asymmetry between economics and the neighboring social sciences from 1959 to 2018. Nova Economia, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 261—291. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/6591
49. Davis J. (2024). Identity, capabilities, and changing economics: Reflexive, adaptive, socially embedded individuals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009438247
50. Davis J. B. (2010). Mäki on economics imperialism. Marquette University Working Paper, No. 2010-04.
51. Debackere K. (2016). Let the data speak for themselves: Opportunities and caveats. Journal of Data and Information Science, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 3—5. https://doi.org/10.20309/jdis.201602
52. Decker S. (2025). The strange non-death of mainstream economics. Exploring Economics. https://www.exploring-economics.org/en/discover/the-strange-non-death-of-mainstream-economics/
53. Dekker E., Teule P. (2012). Economics made fun, and made fun of: How “fun” redefines the domain and identity of the economics profession. Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 427—437. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2012.745298
54. Derber C. (2016). The disinherited majority: Capital questions — Piketty and beyond. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315635149
55. Desierto D., Koyama M. (2025). Institutional сhange. In: C. Ménard, M. M. Shirley (eds.). Handbook of new institutional economics. Cham: Springer, pp. 785— 811. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50810-3_31
56. Dixit A. (2012). Paul Samuelson’s legacy. Annual Review of Economics, Vol. 4, pp. 1—31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110957
57. Drakopoulos S. A. (2016). Economic crisis, economic methodology and the scientific ideal of physics. Journal of Philosophical Economics, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 28—57. https://doi.org/10.46298/jpe.10694
58. Duflo E. (2017). The economist as plumber. American Economic Review, Vol. 107, No. 5, pp. 1—26. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171153
59. Dynan K. (2025). Reclaiming a policy role for economists. Finance and Development Magazine, June, pp. 12—13.
60. Feng Lu S., Hill R., Azoulay P., Ellison G., Angrist J. (2017). Economics gets out more often: Using extramural citations to assess economic scholarship. VoxEU, November 17. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/economics-gets-out-more-often-using-extramural-citations-assess-economic-scholarship
61. Galiani S., Galvez R. H., Nachman I. (2024). Specialization trends in economics research: A large-scale study using natural language. NBER Working Paper, No. 31295. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31295
62. Garg P., Fetzer T. (2024). Causal сlaims in еconomics. CESifo Working Paper Series, No. 11462. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5045487
63. Geiger N. (2014). The rise of behavioral economics: A quantitative assessment. Schriftenreihe des Promotionsschwerpunkts “Globalisierung und Beschäftigung”, No. 44/2015. Stuttgart: Universität Hohenheim.
64. Gingell J. (2015). Economics jargon promotes a deficit in understanding. Guardian, August 14. https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/aug/14/economics-jargon-promotes-a-deficit-in-understanding
65. Greely B. (2024). The Nobel for econsplaining. Financial Times, October 21. https://www.ft.com/content/1e2584d6-65ef-46de-bfb2-28811be65600
66. Green D. (2024). Are we allowed to be unimpressed by Nobel prize winners? Hope so. From Poverty to Power, October 14. https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/are-we-allowed-to-be-unimpressed-by-nobel-prize-winners-hope-so/
67. Hamermesh D. S. (2018). Citations in еconomics: Measurement, uses, and impacts. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 115—156. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20161326
68. Harris C., Myers A., Briol C., Charlene S. (2022). The binding force of economics. In: D. J. D’Amico, A. G. Martin (eds.). Contemporary methods and Austrian economics (Advances in Austrian economics, Vol. 26). Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 69—103. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-213420220000026006
69. Hartwell C. (2023). Kazakhstan: Snow leopard at the crossroads. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003212508
70. Hausman D. (2023). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009320283
71. Heckman J., Singer B. (2017). Abducting economics. American Economic Review, Vol. 107, pp. 298—302. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171118
72. Henderson D. (2024). Henderson on the latest Nobel Prize in еconomics. Econlog Post, October 15. https://www.econlib.org/henderson-on-the-latest-nobel-prize-in-economics/
73. Herrera R. (2022). Confronting mainstream economics for overcoming capitalism. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.13203
74. Ince O. U. (2024). Saving capitalism from empire: Uses of colonial history in new institutional economics. International Relations, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 589—614. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221104699
75. Kelly M. (2020). Understanding persistence. UCD Centre for Economic Research Working Paper Series, No. 2020/23.
76. Klamer A. (1995). A rhetorical perspective on the differences between European and American economists. KYKLOS, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 231—240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1995.tb02433.x
77. Krugman P. (2009). How did economists get it so wrong? New York Times Magazine, September 2. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t. html
78. Krugman P. (2010). The new economic geography, now middle-aged. Regional Studies, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 1—7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.537127
79. Labrousse A. (2020). The rhetorical superiority of poor economics. In: F. Bédécarrats, I. Guérin, F. Roubaud (eds.). Randomized control trials in the field of development: A critical perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 227—255. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865360.003.0010
80. Law D. (2024). Acemoğlu and Robinson. Negative Catallactics, March 4. https:// duncanlaw.wordpress.com/2024/03/04/acemoglu-and-robinson/
81. Lawson T. (1994). Why are so many economists so opposed to methodology? Journal of Economic Methodology, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 105—134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501789400000008
82. Leeson P. (2020). Economics is not statistics (and vice versa). Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 423—425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413742000003X
83. Levi M., Weingast B. R. (2019). Douglass North’s theory of politics. PS: Political Science & Politics, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 213—217. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096518002111
84. Li S. H. (2024). What are economists telling us in the top 5? A structural topic models Approach. Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5011043
85. Longaker M. G. (2018). Rhetoric and еconomics, analysis and history. Advances in the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 108—114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15362426.2018.1474042
86. Lubinski P. (2024). Inquiries into the failure and the wealth of nations new institutional economics and classical political economy. Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5036014
87. Matthews D. (2024). Why some economists are skeptical of this year’s Nobelists? Did they actually figure out why nations fail? VOX, October 16. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/378007/nobel-economics-acemoglu-johnson-robinson-institutions
88. McCloskey D. (1994). Knowledge and persuasion in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511599347
89. McCloskey D. (2019). What’s still right with the Austrian school of economics: A сomment on Boettke. In: D. J. D’Amico, A. G. Martin (eds.). Assessing Austrian economics (Advances in Austrian economics, Vol. 24). Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 33—47. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-213420190000024004
90. McCloskey D. (2021). The statist neo-institutionalism of Acemoglu and Robinson. Rivista di storia economica /Italian Review of Economic History, No. 2, pp. 151—189. https://doi.org/10.1410/101294
91. McCloskey D. (2023). “Power and Progress” review: Technology and the new Leviathan. Wall Street Journal, June 16. https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/power-and-progress-review-the-new-leviathan-39689d0c
92. Ménard C., Shirley M. M. (2014). The future of new institutional economics: From early intuitions to a new paradigm? Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 541—565. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174413741400006X
93. Milanovich B. (2014). My take on the Acemoglu—Robinson critique of Piketty. Global Inequality, August 23. https://glineq.blogspot.com/2014/08/
94. Morgan P. (2020). Technocratic еconomics: An аfterword. History of Political Economy, Vol. 52, Supplement 1, pp. 294—304. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-8718067
95. Nicholas H. (2012). What is the problem with neoclassical price theory? World Review of Political Economy, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 457—477. https://doi.org/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.3.4.0457
96. Nuttall P. (2023). Is technology our friend or our foe? “Power and progress” dives in. Parliament, September 23. https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/book-review-power-and-progress-technology
97. Posner E., Weyl G. (2018). How economists became so timid. Chronicle of Higher Education, May 6. https://www.chronicle.com/article/How-Economists-Became-So-Timid/243326
98. Pressman S. (2016). Understanding Piketty’s Capital in the twenty-first century. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315674728
99. Rosalsky G. (2024). Have economists gone out of fashion in Washington? Planet Money, September 24. https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/09/23/g-s1-23958/economists-influence-washington
100. Rubin P. H. (2003). Folk economics. Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 70, No. 1, pp. 157—171. https://doi.org/10.2307/1061637
101. Ruccio D. F., Amariglio J. (2003). Postmodern moments in modern economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
102. Sandoval-Hernández A., Rutkowski D. J. (2025). Embracing complexity: Abductive reasoning as a versatile tool for analyzing international large-scale assessments. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, Vol. 37, pp. 255—271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-024-09449-2
103. Schrager A. (2024). What do graduates of Yale Law School know about economics? Bloomberg, August 5. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-05/what-do-graduates-of-yale-law-school-know-about-economics
104. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (2024). Scientifc background to the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2024. Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2024/10/advanced-economics-ciences-prize-2024.pdf
105. Soderbaum P. (2000). Ecological economics. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.
106. Spiegler P., Milberg W. (2009). The taming of institutions in economics: The rise and methodology of the “New new institutionalism”. Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 289—313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137409990026
107. Spithoven A. (2019). Similarities and dissimilarities between original institutional economics and new institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 440—447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00213624.2019.1594532
108. Stahl R. N. (2025). The end of economics hegemony? Studying economic ideas in a postneoliberal world. Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 1266—1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2025.2467384
109. Summers L. (1999). Distinguished lecture on economics in government reflections on managing global integration. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 3—18. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.2.3
110. Temin P. (2013). The rise and fall of economic history at MIT. MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, No. 13-11.
111. Tirole J. (2017). Economics for the common good. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77hng
112. Truc A., Santerre O., Gingras Y., Claveau F. (2021). The Interdisciplinarity of economics. Available at SSRN: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3669335
113. Vromen J. (2009). The booming economics-made-fun genre: More Than having fun, but less than economics imperialism. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 70—99. https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v2i1.25
114. Wen Y. (2024). The Nobel Prize’s undermining its own value for underestimating China. China Academy, November 5. https://thechinaacademy.org/the-nobel-prizes-undermining-its-own-value-for-underestimating-china/
115. Zaman A. (2020). Models and reality: How did models divorced from reality become epistemologically acceptable? International Econometric Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 24—49. https://doi.org/10.33818/ier.748128
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Maltsev A.A., Shastitko A.E. Where is the nostalgic empiricism of the new new institutionalists leading economics? Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2025;(12):5-31. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2025-12-5-31
Views:
21
Email this article 
