Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T03:14:10.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why do Evaluative Histories Matter after all?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Michel S. Zouboulakis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question of progress in economic knowledge during its historical development has been thoroughly treated several times in the past by many eminent economists, historians of thought, and philosophers (Stigler 1965, 1983; Worswick 1972; Blaug 1985, 2000; Hausman 1989; Khalil 1995; Backhouse 1997). Although this tenacity in wondering about progress proves that it has a real importance, a growing number of economists suggest that it has no meaning, either because it is useless, or because it is too exigent for economics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2001 , pp. 369 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2001

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

Amariglio, Jack. 1988. “The Body, Economic Discourse and Power: An Economist's Introduction to Foucault.” History of Political Economy 20: 583–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachelard, Gaston. 1951. L'activité rationaliste de la Physique contemporaine. Paris: Christian Bourgois. 1978.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger. E. 1992. “How Should We Approach the History of Economic Thought: Fact, Fiction or Moral Tale?” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14: 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger. E. 1994. “The Lakatosian Legacy in Economic Methodology.” In Backhouse, R. E., ed., New Directions in Economic Methodology. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger. E. 1997. Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baslé, Maurice. 1996. “Débat sur la méthode en Histoire de la Pensée Economique.” Economies et Sociétés, Serie R No 6: 213–25.Google Scholar
Bellanca, Nicolo and Guidi, Marco. 1997. “Uchronies and the History of Economic Knowledge.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 4: 116–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birken, Lawrence. 1988. “From Macroeconomics to Microeconomics: The Marginalist Revolution in Socio-Cultural Perspective.” History of Political Economy 20: 251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birken, Lawrence. 1990. “Foucault, Marginalism and the History of Economic Thought: A Rejoinder to Amariglio.” History of Political Economy 22: 557–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birken, Lawrence. 1994. “Intellectual History and the History of Economic Thought: A Reply to Lipkis.” History of Political Economy 26: 501–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1976. “Kuhn vs. Lakatos or Paradigms vs. Research Programmes in the History of Economics.” In Latsis, Spiro J., ed., Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1985. Economic Theory in Retrospect, 3rd edition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1990. “The Historiography of Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 12: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1994. “Why I Am Not a Constructivist: Confessions of an Unrepentant Popperian.” In Backhouse, R. E., ed., New Directions in Economic Methodology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1998. “Where Are We Now in British Health Economics?” Health Economics 7: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaug, Mark. 2000. “Is There Really Progress in Economics?” Opening Lecture to the Fourth Annual Conference of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought. Graz, Austria.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 1982. Beyond Positivism. London: G. Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 1991. “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs: Criticisms and Conjectures.” In Shaw, G., ed., Economics, Culture and Educatiom Essays in Honor of Mark Blaug. Aldershot: E. Elgar.Google Scholar
Canguilhem, Georges. 1968. Etudes d'Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
Cesarano, Filippo. 1983. “On the Role of the History of Economic Analysis.” History of Political Economy 15: 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalk, Alfred. 1967. “Relativist and Absolutist Approaches to the History of Economic Theory.” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 48: 5–12.Google Scholar
Coats, Arthur William. 1964. “The Role of Authority in the Development of British Economics.” Journal of Law and Economics 7: 85–106.Google Scholar
Coats, Arthur William. 1984. “The Sociology of Knowledge and the History of Economics.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 2: 211–34.Google Scholar
Coats, Arthur William. 1987. “Economics, History and Hope.” The History of Economics Society Bulletin 8: 1–20.Google Scholar
Coats, Arthur William, ed. 1997. The Post 1945 internationalization of Economics. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Neil B. 1991. “Introduction: Rethinking Lakatos.” In De Marchi, N. B. and Blaug, M., eds., Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Drakopoulos, Stavros. 1994. “Economics and the New Physics: Some Methodological Implications.” South African Journal of Economics 62: 333–53.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1966. Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Craufurd. 1980. “Toward a Theory of the History of Economics.” History of Political Economy 12: 610–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 1985. “Second Thoughts On Lakatos.” History of Political Economy 17: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 1994. “The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: Some Thoughts On the Possibilities.” In Backhouse, R. E., ed., New Directions in Economic Methodology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 1997. “Conjectures and Reputations: The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and the History of Economic Thought.” History of Political Economy 29: 695–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 1989. “Explanatory Progress in Economics.” Social Research 56: 361–81.Google Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel. 1998. “Problems With Realism in Economics.” Economics and Philosophy 14: 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbroner, Robert. 1979. “Modern Economics As a Chapter in the History of Economic Thought.” History of Political Economy 11: 192–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HooverKevin, D. Kevin, D. 1995. “Why Does Methodology Matter For Economists?” Economic Journal 105: 715–34.Google Scholar
KarayiannisAnastassios, D. Anastassios, D. 1998. “Selectivity Criteria in the Historiography of Economics.” History of Economics Review 28: 113–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, Elias. 1995. “Has Economics Progressed? Rectilinear, Historicist, Universalist and Evolutionary Historiographies.” History of Political Economy 27: 43–87.Google Scholar
Klamer, Arjo. 1988. “Economics As Discourse.” In De Marchi, N. B., ed., The Popperian Legacy in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. “History of Science.” In The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsificationism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambrislge: Cambridge U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1971. “The History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen, eds., Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8: 91–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lallement, Jerôme. 1984. “Histoire de la pensée ou archéologie du savoir?” Economies et Sociétés, Serie PE No 2: 61–93.Google Scholar
Lapidus, André. 1996. “Introduction à une histoire de la pensée economique qui ne verrajamais le jour.” Revue Economique 47: 867–92.Google Scholar
Mäki, Uskali. 1989. “On the Problem of Realism in Economics.” Ricerche Economiche 43: 176–98.Google Scholar
Mäki, Uskali. 1992. “Social Conditioning of Economics.” In De Marchi, N. B., ed., Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Mäki, Uskali. 1995. “Diagnosing McCloskey.” Journal of Economic Literature 33: 1300–318.Google Scholar
Mayer, Thomas. 1995. Doing Economic Research: Essays On the Applied Methodology of Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald. 1983. “The Rhetoric of Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 21: 481–517.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald. 1988. “Thick and Thin Methodologies in the History of Economic Thought.” In De Marchi, N. B., ed., The Popperian Legacy in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald. 1995. “Metaphors Economists Live By.” Social Research 62: 215–37.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1989. More Heat Than Light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1972. Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science, edited by Bartley, W. W.. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Rappaport, Steven. 1995. “Is Economics Empirical Knowledge?” Economics and Philosophy 11: 137–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1962. Economic Philosophy. London: Penguin, 1983.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1983. “If Economics Isn't Science, What Is It?” The Philosophical Forum 14: 296–314.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Alexander. 1994. “What Is the Cognitive Status of Economic Theory?” In Backhouse, R. E., ed., New Directions in Economic Methodology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Samuels, Warren J. 1974. “The History of Economic Thought As Intellectual History.” History of Political Economy 6: 305–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 1992. “Breaking Away: History of Economics as History of Science.” History of Political Economy 24: 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Christian. 1983. “De Charles Gide à Mark Blaug: Eléments pour une histoire de l'histoire de la pensée économique.” Revue d'Economie Politique 93: 847–68.Google Scholar
Shearmur, Jeremy. 1991. “Popper, Lakatos and Theoretical Progress in Economics.” In De Marchi, N. B. and Blaug, M., eds., Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1965. “The Nature and Role of Originality in Scientific Progres.” In Essays in the History of Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1983. “Nobel Lecture: The Process and Progress of Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 91: 529–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarascio, Vincent. 1971. “Some Recent Developments in the History of Economic Thought in the United States.” History of Political Economy 3: 419–31.Google Scholar
Weintraub, Roy. 1989. “Methodology Doesn't Matter, But the History of Thought Might.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 91: 477–93.Google Scholar
Weintraub, Roy. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worswick, G. D. N. 1972. “Is Progress of Economic Science Possible?” Economic Journal 82: 73–86.Google Scholar
Zouboulakis, Michel S. 1993. La science économique à la recherche de ses fondements. La tradition épistémologique ricardienne, 1826–1891. Paris: P.U.F.Google Scholar