Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T17:25:03.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cowles Changes Allegiance: From Empiricism to Cognition as Intuitive Statistics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Philip Mirowski
Philip Mirowski
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Notre Dame.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Does neoclassical economic theory embody a specific politics? A century of uneasy bromides have done little to seriously clarify the issue, perhaps because of a tendency to confuse the various levels of specificity at which an answer might be tendered and defended. At its most abstract and general, the response must surely be: a few equations imperfectly cribbed from rational mechanics need have no special affinity with any political position whatsoever, as long as sufficient ingenuity is expended in their interpretation and elaboration. Yet, at a slightly less elevated level, the question as to whether individual neoclassical economists put forth arguments that supported various political programs cannot be answered in any other manner but the airmative. Walras thought it underwrote a limited conception of state ownership of land; Pareto thought it resonated with a sour cynicism about the circulation of elites; Hayek began by thinking it helped explain an anti-statist position; Milton Friedman believed it the economics of Dr. Pangloss. But this raises the further question: Is there anything intrinsic to the doctrine that biases it toward one political orientation or another? This question can only be addressed at the very specific level of individual cultural formations at well-demarcated historical junctures.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 165 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Albers, D., Alexanderson, G., and Reid, C., eds. 1990. More Mathematical People. Boston: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth. 1991b. “Cowles in the History of Economic Thought.” In Cowles' Fiftieth Anniversary. New Haven, CT: Cowles.Google Scholar
Bellman, Richard. 1984. Eye of the Hurricane. Singapore: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazer, Marjorie 1982. “The Economics Department at the University of Michigan.” In Hymans, Saul, ed., Economics and the World Around It. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Burns, Arthur. 1951. “Mitchell on What Happens During Business Cycles.” In Conference on Business Cycles. New York: NBER, 1982.Google Scholar
Capshew, James. 1999. Psychologists on the March. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceruzzi, Paul. 1989. Beyond the Limits. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christ, Carl. 1952. “History of the Cowles Commission, 1932–52.” In Economic Theory and Measurement. Chicago: Cowles Commission.Google Scholar
Christ, Carl. 1994. “The Cowles Commission's Contributions to Econometrics at Chicago, 1939–55.” Journal of Economic Literature 32: 30–59.Google Scholar
Collins, Martin. 1998. Planning for Modern War: RAND and the Air Force 1945–50. Ph.D. thesis, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Cowles Commission. 1951. Rational Decision Making and Economic Behavior. 19th Annual Report. Chicago: Cowles Commission.Google Scholar
Dantzig, George. 1987. “The Origins of the Simplex Method.” Technical Report SOL 87–5, Stanford Optimization Laboratory.Google Scholar
Dantzig, George. 1991. “Linear Programming.” In Lenstra, J., Kan, A., and Schrijver, A., eds., A History of Mathematical Programming. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Debreu, Gerard. 1991. “The Mathematization of Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 81: 1–7.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Robert. 1984. “The Discovery of Linear Programming.” Annals ofthe History of Computing (6): 283–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzuback, Mary Ann. 1991. Robert M. Hutchins. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, Paul. 1996. The Closed World. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Roy. 1987. A History of Econometrics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Feiwel, George, ed. 1987a. Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economics. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feiwel, George, ed. 1987b. Arrow and the Foundations of the Theory of Economic Policy. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Gene and Walker, Warren. 1994. “Operations Research and the RAND Corporation.” Santa Monica: RAND P-7857.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 1992. “Discovery in Cognitive Psychology.” Science in Context 5: 329–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd and Murray, David. 1987. Cognition as Intuitive Statistics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
William, Goldstein and Hogarth, Robin, eds. 1997. Research on Judgment and Decision Making. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grattan-Guinness, Ivor. 1994. “From Virtual Velocities to Economic Action.” In Mirowski, P., ed., Natural Images in Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Hershberg, James. 1993. James Conant. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Hildreth, Clifford. 1986. The Cowles Commission in Chicago. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Hodges, Andrew. 1983. The Enigma. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Hurwicz, Leonid. 1945. “The Theory of Economic Behavior.” American Economic Review 35: 909–25.Google Scholar
Hurwicz, Leonid. 1984. “Economic Planning and the Knowledge Problem.” Cato Journal 4: 419–25.Google Scholar
Ingrao, Bruna and Israel, Giorgio. 1990. The Invisible Hand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jardini, David. 1996. Out of the Blue Yonder. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Kathren, Ronald et al. , eds. 1994. The Plutonium Story: The Journals of Glenn T. Seaborg. Columbus: Battelle Press.Google Scholar
Kjeldsen, Thorvald. 2000. “A Contextualized Historical Analysis of the Kuhn-Tucker Theorem.” Historia Mathematica 4: 331–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Lawrence. 1991. “Econometric Contributions of the Cowles Commission, 1944–47.” Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review 177: 107–17.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling. 1947. “Measurement without Theory.” Review of Economic Statistics. 29: 161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling, ed. 1950. Statistical Inference in Dynamic Economic Models. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling, ed. 1951. Activity Analysis of Production and Allocation. Cowles Monograph 13. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling. 1970. Scientific Papers. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Koopmans, Tjalling. 1991. Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: Kelley, 1957.Google Scholar
Lanouette, William. 1992. Genius in the Shadows. New York: Scribners.Google Scholar
Lenstra, J., Kan, A., and Schrijver, A., eds. 1991. A History of Mathematical Programming. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Marschak, Jacob. 1941. “A Discussion of Methods in Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 49: 441–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marschak, Jacob. 1946. “Neumann's and Morgenstern's New Approach to Static Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 54: 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMillan, Brockway. 1962. “Mathematicians and Their Uses.” SIAM Review 4: 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1989a. More Heat than Light. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1989b. “The Measurement without Theory Controversy.” Economies et Societes 23: 65–87.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1999. “Cyborg Agonistes.” Social Studies of Science 29: 685–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 2002. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip and Hands, D. Wade. 1998. “Harold Hotelling and the American Dream.” In Backhouse, R., Hausman, D., Maki, U., and Salanti, A., eds., Economics and Methodology: Crossing Boundaries. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip and Hands, D. Wade. 1999. “A Paradox of Budgets.” In Morgan, Mary and Rutherford, Malcolm, eds., From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Mary. 1990. The History of Econometric Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, John. 1950. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 18: 155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poundstone, William. 1992. Prisoner's Dilemma. New York: Anchor.Google Scholar
Rhodes, Richard. 1986. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Scarf, Herbert. 1997. “Tjalling Koopmans.” Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 67: 263–91.Google Scholar
Schrecker, Ellen. 1986. No Ivory Tower. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Benjamin. 1989. “The Invention of Linear Programming.” Annals for the History of Computing 11: 145–51.Google Scholar
Selcraig, James. 1982. The Red Scare in the Midwest, 1945–55. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1945. “Review of the Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.” American Journal of Sociology 27: 558–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert. 1991. Models of My Life. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Solberg, W. and Tomlinson, R.. 1997. “Academic McCarthyism and Keynesian Economics.” History of Political Economy 29: 55–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, Ellen. 1997. Close to the Machine. San Francisco: City Lights.Google Scholar
von Neumann, John and Morgenstern, Oskar. 1964. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar