‘Model-Platonism’ in economics: on a classical epistemological critique

Kapeller, Jakob

doi:10.1017/s1744137413000052

Cited by 23 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, microeconomic research shows a greater degree of topical and, hence, terminological diversification, while the core macroeconomic problems stay the same over time as well as across countries. In this perspective, the greater conceptual fragmentation of microeconomic research (Colander et al 2004, Rodrik 2015, Kapeller 2013 in conjunction with the fact that a high degree of analytical generality is ascribed to major microeconomic terms (Lazear 2000) provides a plausible rationale for these different outcomes.…”

Section: General Topical Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Focus of Academic Economics: Before and after the Crisis

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractHas the global financial crisis of 2007ff had a visible impact on the economics profession? To answer this question we employ a bibliometric approach and compare the content and orientation of economic literature before and after the crisis with reference to two different samples: A large-scale sample consisting of more than 440,000 articles published between 1956 and 2016 and a smaller sample of 400 top-cited papers before and after the crisis. Our results suggest that -unlike the Great Depression of the 1930s -the current financial crisis did not lead to any major theoretical or methodological changes in contemporary economics, although the topic of financial instability received increased attention after the crisis.

show abstract

Section: General Topical Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Focus of Academic Economics: Before and after the Crisis

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Angner, 2019). Within a plurality of theories, but not of methods, their way of doing behavioral economics offers interesting complementary research insights, particularly as a facilitator for immunizing economic theory from empirical critique via the strategy of axiomatic variation (Kapeller, 2013): appropriately interpreted, these results only show the superiority of the economic approach by explaining more and more empirical cases with models containing optimizing agents and a systemic equilibrium (see also Earl, 2010).…”

Section: Outside Criticism I: the Discipline Is Already Pluralistmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons

Gräbner

Strunk

2020

Journal of Economic Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper starts with an evaluation of three common arguments against pluralism in economics: (1) the claim that economics is already pluralist, (2) the argument that if there was the need for greater plurality, it would emerge on its own, and (3) the assertion that pluralism means 'anything goes' and is, thus, unscientific. Pluralist responses to all three arguments are summarized. The third argument is shown to relate to a greater challenge for pluralism: an epistemological trade-off between diversity and consensus that suggests moving from a discussion about 'pros' and 'cons' towards a discussion about the adequate degree of plurality. The paper shows how the trade-off originates from two main challenges: the need to derive adequate quality criteria for a pluralist economics, and the necessity to propose strategies that facilitate the communication across different research programs. It concludes with some strategies to meet these challenges.

show abstract

“…As are the issues of reduction or 'true' causalities, time is not a problematic issue for the 'model-platonism' that characterises mainstream economics (Kapeller, 2013), and mainstream models hypothesise the existence of equilibrium, homeostasis and time reversibility. This conception is unjustified, however, and closer to a 19 th century view of mechanics than contemporary physics, though the latter is the science that mainstream economics has striven to imitate since this 19 th century (Mirowski, 1984;1989).…”

Section: Conceptualising Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Causality, Modelling, Social Norms: Among the Theoretical Cores of ‘Heterodox’ Economics?

Sindzingre¹

2018

JIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The definitions and theoretical cores of 'heterodox' economics remain subject to debate, as do those of 'mainstream' economics. The theoretical elements that could unambiguously differentiate both perspectives are therefore debated. Common features are difficult to highlight within 'heterodox' economics. Symmetrically, 'mainstream' economics is uneasy to describe via necessary and sufficient features, as numerous authors within its field claim to have enriched neoclassical economics, and to use concepts from other social sciences. On the other hand, 'heterodox' policies and their differences with mainstream ones (e.g., 'austerity') appear to be more identifiable. Despite these uncertainties, the paper shows that some core concepts and theoretical assumptions may represent a distinction between heterodox and mainstream economics. The contribution of the paper is to argue that many conventional distinctions may in fact not be unambiguous criteria of distinguishing the two epistemic frameworks (e.g., self-interested agents, the methodology of modelling, use of concepts of social sciences), and to suggest a few theoretical issues that could constitute lines of difference-notably related to the concepts of causality, time and society.

show abstract

‘Model-Platonism’ in economics: on a classical epistemological critique

Cited by 23 publications

References 52 publications

The Focus of Academic Economics: Before and after the Crisis

The Focus of Academic Economics: Before and after the Crisis

Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons

Causality, Modelling, Social Norms: Among the Theoretical Cores of ‘Heterodox’ Economics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About