Abstract

This dissertation examines an emerging postmodern economics from both an intellectual context and through postmodern research methods for economics. The intellectual context of postmodern economics is connected to the research methods through a discussion of the different philosophical contexts of modern and postmodern economics, and the resulting implications for methodology. The hypothesis of this study is that the evolution of the United States economy from a modern industrial economy to a postmodern postindustrial economy has begun to be accompanied by a parallel transition from modern economics to an emerging postmodern economics. ;The intellectual context is interdisciplinary and includes a review of economics, language studies, social theory, and philosophy. Important parts of this postmodern context include the rhetoric of economics project of D. N. McCloskey and the neopragmatism of Richard Rorty, Richard Bernstein, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and Stanley Fish. Postmodern economics is shown to have more in common with American institutional economics than with either neoclassical or Marxian economics. ;The discussion of the philosophical context compares the logical positivism or modernist thought exhibited in Milton Friedman's "Methodology of Positive Economics" to pragmatist and neopragmatist philosophy, which represents postmodern thinking. The methodological implication is that postmodern economics can go beyond modern economics in seeking not only prediction and control, but interpretive understanding and better practical application. ;Three postmodern methods are described: strategic interpretation is a method for the strong reading of texts in order to open up interdisciplinary space; narrative policy analysis is a method to uncover the complexity, uncertainty, and polarization within a policy issue; and scenario planning is a method for uncovering critical uncertainties and assessing alternative futures. Case studies include economic development and implications of economic determinism. ;The dissertation concludes with a discussion of postmodern policy leadership as engaging private self-creation with public vision