Science and Ideology in Economic, Political and Social Thought

Abstract

Abstract:This paper has two sources: One is my own research in three broad areas: business cycles, economic measurement and social choice. In all of these fields I attempted to apply the basic precepts of the scientific method as it is understood in the natural sciences. I found that my effort at using natural science methods in economics was met with little understanding and often considerable hostility. I found economics to be driven less by common sense and empirical evidence, than by various ideologies that exhibited either a political or a methodological bias, or both. This brings me to the second source: Several books have appeared recently that describe in historical terms the ideological forces that have shaped either the direct areas in which I worked, or a broader background. These books taught me that the ideological forces in the social sciences are even stronger than I imagined on the basis of my own experiences.The scientific method is the antipode to ideology. I feel that the scientific work that I have done on specific, long standing and fundamental problems in economics and political science have given me additional insights into the destructive role of ideology beyond the history of thought orientation of the works I will be discussing. JEL: B40, C50, D6, D71, E32

A model of dynamic balance among the three spheres of society – markets, governments, and communities

“…Without specifically highlighting communities as a separate sphere, Hirschman (Hillinger, 2007) -have also been widely recognized by market skeptics, including many feminist economists recently, as well as: Polanyi, 1944Polanyi, /1968Weisskopf, 1955:140-42;Mishan, 1967Burenstam Linder, 1970;Plumb, 1972/88;Hirsch, 1976, especially Part II on commodity bias and commercialization bias; Bell, 1976;Fusfeld, 1985:50;Bowles, 1991Bowles, :12-13, 1998Etzioni, 1993;Simons, 1995:xvii,ch. 3;Putnam, 1995Putnam, , 2000Goodwin et al, 1997;Giddens, 1998:15;Frank, 1999:88;Fukuyama, 1999:5-6,250-52;Johnson and Earle, 2000:251,376;Lane, 2000:326,336;Myers, 2000;Ciscel and Heath, 2001;Kamarck, 2001:26,84,99;Harris and Johnson, 2003:322;Stiglitz, 2002:56,74,247 and2003:293,303,319;Roccas and McCauley, 2004:269-70; and of course Marx, 1887:457-8 (Simons, 1995, also discusses Marx in this regard).…”