Two Diputes of Methods, Three Constructivisms, and Three Liberalisms. Part II

Vladimir M. Yefimov

Abstract


The paper proposes to reconsider the methodology and history of economics radically, whether present day mainstream or heterodox versions of it. The profession of economists must definitely abandon Cartesian dualism and adopt Vygotskian constructivism. In fact constructivist economics already existed in the past and was cognitively very successful and socially very useful. It was the economics of Gustav Schmoller’s historico-ethical school and the institutionalist economics of John R. Commons, traditions of which are totally ignored by the contemporary community of economists. The former tradition was based on Dilthey’s hermeneutics and the latter on Peirce’s pragmatism. It is worth to underline that hermeneutics and pragmatism are both predecessors of Vygotskian constructivism. During the last two decades a lot was written by economists on pragmatist, constructivist and discursive approaches to the methodology and history of economics, but those who wrote on these topics viewed them from the dualistic point of view. My paper is an appeal to economists to reconsider Methodenstreit. The dispute of methods between Schmoller and Menger can be considered as a repetition of a similar dispute taking place more than two hundred years earlier between Robert Boyle and Thomas Hobbes. Schmoller-Menger dispute started soon after the beginning of the institutionalisation of experimentally-oriented economics which happened with the creation in 1873 of the Vereinfür Sozialpolitik. Boyle-Hobbes dispute started in 1660, when the Royal Society of London had been founded, the cradle of the institution of science. Schmoller was one of the creators of the Verein, and Boyle was one of the founders of the Royal Society. The activities of both societies were similar in several respects: they represented efforts to collect data, working out of detailed reports and collective evaluation of obtained results. For Hobbes, as for Menger, the model of ‘science’ was geometry. Boyle and Schmoller privileged collecting and analysing data. Boyle did win the dispute, Schmoller did loose. It happened because of different attitudes of powerful groups in societies towards natural scientific experimental research and experimental social research. They were interested in the former, and they saw much more danger than benefit for them in the latter. On the contrary, they were interested in abstract theoretical constructions justifying the market vision of society and laissez-faire. This kind of constructions corresponded to deeply enrooted scholastic traditions of European universities to teach theology and linked with it philosophy. In the framework of these traditions, mathematics was considered as a summit of the scientific approach. On the one hand, the adoption of constructivism by economists would turn their discipline into a science functionally close to natural sciences. On the other hand the Vygotskian constructivism, as a social and political philosophy, once accepted by economists, may lead them to become preachers of the communitarian liberalism with its emphasis on social responsibility, deliberative democracy, and discourse ethics.

Keywords


Methodenstreit; social constructivism; constructivist epistemology and ontology for economics; constructivist history of economics; economic policy and deliberative democracy; economic philosophy and discourse ethics; communitarian liberalism

Full Text:

PDF

References


Gribbin, J. (2003). Science. A History. 1543–2001. London: Penguin Books.

Burtt, E. A. (2003). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. NY: Dover Publications.

Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Shapin, S. (1994). A Social History of Truth. Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Yonay, Y. P. (1998). The Struggle over the Soul of Economics. Institutional and Neoclassical Economists in America between the Wars. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Peirce, C. S. (1992). The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings, 1, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Cunningham, W. (1894). “Why had Roscher so little influence in England ?”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 5, November, 317-334.

Knorr Cetina K. (1991) “Epistemic Cultures: Forms of Reason in Science”, History of Political Economy, Vol. 23, No 1, pp. 105-122.

Friedman, M. (1953). “Methodology of Positive Economics”, in Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 3-43.

Rubinstein, A. (2006). “Dilemmas of an Economic Theorist”. Econometrica, vol. 74, 4 (July), 865–883.

Mill, J. S. (1836). “On the definition and method of political economy”. In D.M. Hausman (Ed.). The Philosophy of Economics. An Anthology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.

Mill, J. S. (1843). The system of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation. London: Longmans. 1886.

Boyle, R. (1690). The Christian Virtuoso showing that by being addicted to experimental philosophy, a man is rather assisted, than indisposed, to be a good Christian. London: T. H. R. B.

Fichte, J. G. (1851). The Vocation of the Scholar. London: John Chapman.

Engels, F. (2009). The Condition of the Working-Class in England in 1844. New York: Cosimo Inc.

Grimmer-Solem, E. (2003). The Rise of Historical Economics and Social Reform in Germany1864–1894. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tribe, K. (2002). Historical Schools of Economics: German and English. Keele Economics Research Paper, No 2, Keele University.

Balabkins, N. W. (1988). Not by Theory Alone . . . : The Economics of Gustav von Schmollerand Its Legacy to America. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.

Priddat, B. P. (1995). Die andereOkonomie. Marburg: Metropolis.

Schellschmidt, H. (1997). Okonomische Institutionenanalyse und Sozialpolitik. Marburg: Metropolis.

Peukert, H. (2001a). “The Schmoller Renaissance”, History of Political Economy, vol. 33, 1, Spring, 71-116.

Peukert, H. (2001b). “Bridging Old and New Institutional Economics: Gustav Schmoller and Douglass C. North, Seen with Oldinstitutionalists’ Eyes”, European Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 11, 2, 91-130.

a. Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton University Press.

Berger P. and T. Luckmann. (1991) The Social Construction of Reality, London: Penguin Books.

Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce. Selected Philosophical Writings, 2, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

North, D. C. (2003). The Role of Institutions in Economic Development, Occasional paper No.1, New York and Geneva: Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations.

Harre, R. (2009). “Saving Critical Realism”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, vol. 39, 2, 129-143.

Harre, R. & Tissaw, M. (2005) Wittgenstein and Psychology. A Practical Guide. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Harre, R. & Secord, P. (1972). The Explanation of Social Behaviour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Bloor, D. (1997). Wittgenstein, Rules and Institutions. London; New York: Routledge.

Schmoller, G. (1894). “The Idea of Justice in Political Economy”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 4 (March), 1- 41.

Steuart, J. (1767). An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy: being an Essay on the Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nation, vol. I. London: A. Millar and T. Cadell.

Hayek, F. A. (1978). “The Errors of Constructivism”. In: F.A. Hayek, New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 3-22.

Salin, P. (2000). Leberalisme. Paris: Editions Odile Jacob.

Rubinstein, A. (2012). Economic Fables. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.

Schmoller, G. (1998). Historisch-ethnische Nationalokonomie als Kulturwissenschaft. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag.

Weintraub E. R. (2001) “Making Economic Knowledge: Reflections on Golinski’s Constructivist History of Science”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 23, No 2, pp. 277-282.

Heilbroner, R. (2004). “Economics as Universal Science”. Social Research, vol. 71, 3, 615-632.

Heilbroner, R. (1988). Behind the Veil of Economics: Essays in the Worldly Philosophy. New York, London: W. W. Norton & Co.

Heilbroner, R. & Milberg, W. (1995). The Crisis of Vision in Modern Economic Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sachs, J. (2011). The Price of Civilization. Economics and Ethics after the Fall. London: The Bodley Head.

Selznick, Ph. (2002). The Communitarian Persuasion. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

Bazzoli, L. & Dutraive, V. (2014). «Lecture croisee de la philosophie de J. Dewey et de l’economie de J.R. Commons». Revue economique, vol. 65, 2, 357-372.

Yefimov, V. (2013). “From Pleasure Machines to Moral Communities (Reflections on a New Book by Geoffrey Hodgson)”, Journal of Institutional Studies, vol. 5, 2 (August), 7-47. (in Russian). Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/49156/1/MPRA_paper_49156.pdf

Harre R. and G. Gillett (1994). The Discursive Mind. Thousand Oaks; London; New Dehli: Sage Publications.

Smith, B. (2013). “Document Acts”, In A.Konzelmann-Ziv, H. B. Schmid (eds.), Institutions, Emotions, and Group Agents. Contributions to Social Ontology, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its Problems. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Commons, J. R. (1950). The Economics of Collective Action. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Ulrich, P. (2008). Integrative Economic Ethics: Foundations of a Civilized Market Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15826/recon.2015.2.006

Copyright (c) 2018 Vladimir M. Yefimov