Authors
Eric Schliesser
University of Amsterdam
Abstract
This paper argues that history of economics has a fruitful, underappreciated role to play in the development of economics, especially when understood as a policy science. This goes against the grain of the last half century during which economics, which has undergone a formal revolution, has distanced itself from its `literary' past and practices precisely with the aim to be a more successful policy science. The paper motivates the thesis by identifying and distinguishing four kinds of reflexivity in economics. The main thesis of this paper is that because these forms of reflexivity are not eliminable, the history of economics must play a constitutive role in economics. An assumption that I clarify in this paper is that the history of economics ought to be part of the subject matter studied by economics when they are interested in policy science. Even if one does not accept the conclusion, the fourfold classification of reflexivity might hold independent interest. The paper is divided in two parts. First, by reflecting on the writings of George Stigler, Paul Samuelson, George and Milton Friedman, I offer a stylized historical introduction to and conceptualization of the themes of this paper. In particular, I identify various historically influential arguments and strategies that reduced the role of history of economics within the economics discipline. In it I also canvass six arguments that try to capture the cost to economics for sidelining the history of economics from within the discipline. A sub-text of the introduction is that for contingent reasons, post World War II economics evolved into a policy science. Second, by drawing on the work of Kenneth Boulding, in particular, George Soros, Thomas Merton, Gordon Tullock, I distinguish between four species of reflexivity. These are used to then strengthen the argument for the constitutive role of the history of economics within the economics profession. In particular, I argue that so-called Kuhn-losses are especially pernicious when faced with policy choices under so-called Knightian uncertainty
Keywords History of Economics   Knightian Uncertainty   Methodology   Philosophic Prophecy   Reflexivity   Public Policy
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1163/187226311X599899
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,192
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Economists as Experts: Overconfidence in Theory and Practice.Erik Angner - 2006 - Journal of Economic Methodology 13 (1):1-24.
Reflexivity: Curse or Cure?John B. Davis & Matthias Klaes - 2003 - Journal of Economic Methodology 10 (3):329-352.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Economics of Science: Survey and Suggestions.Esther-Mirjam Sent - 1999 - Journal of Economic Methodology 6 (1):95-124.
Is Milton Friedman an Artist or a Scientist?David Colander - 1995 - Journal of Economic Methodology 2 (1):105-122.
Methodenstreit in der Nationalökonomie.Jürgen Backhaus & Reginald Hansen - 2000 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 31 (2):307-336.
Applying Economics, Using Evidence.Roger E. Backhouse & Matthias Klaes - 2009 - Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (2):139-144.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-12-06

Total views
60 ( #190,218 of 2,507,093 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,155 of 2,507,093 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes