6 found
  1.  5
    From Economics Imperialism to Freakonomics: The Shifting Boundaries Between Economics and Other Social Sciences.Ben Fine & Dimitris Milonakis - 2009 - Routledge.
    Is or has economics ever been the imperial social science? Could or should it ever be so? These are the central concerns of this book. It involves a critical reflection on the process of how economics became the way it is, in terms of a narrow and intolerant orthodoxy, that has, nonetheless, increasingly directed its attention to appropriating the subject matter of other social sciences through the process termed "economics imperialism". In other words, the book addresses the shifting boundaries between (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  2.  9
    From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and the Historical in the Evolution of Economic Theory.Dimitris Milonakis & Ben Fine - 2008 - Routledge.
    Economics has become a monolithic science, variously described as formalistic and autistic with neoclassical orthodoxy reigning supreme. So argue Dimitris Milonakis and Ben Fine in this new major work of critical recollection. The authors show how economics was once rich, diverse, multidimensional and pluralistic, and unravel the processes that lead to orthodoxy’s current predicament. The book details how political economy became economics through the desocialisation and the dehistoricisation of the dismal science, accompanied by the separation of economics from the other (...)
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  3. ‘Useless but True’: Economic Crisis and the Peculiarities of Economic Science.Dimitris Milonakis & Ben Fine - 2011 - Historical Materialism 19 (2):3-31.
    The recent economic crisis has brought to the fore another crisis that has been going on for many years, that of economic theory. The latter failed to predict and, after the event, cannot offer an explanation of why it happened. This article sketches out why this is the case and what constitutes the crisis of economics. On this basis, the case is made for the revival of an interdisciplinary political economy as the only way for offering an explanation of the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  4.  7
    Scientific communities, recent crisis and change in economics: a Kuhnian perspective.Sergios Tzotzes & Dimitris Milonakis - 2022 - Journal of Economic Methodology 30 (1):34-48.
    Considering Kuhn’s emphasis on the community structure of science, this paper focuses on the scientific community to inquire whether the recent global financial crisis ushered paradigm change in economics. To appraise the nature and the extent of post-crisis change, we examine the methodological constitution of the dominant paradigm identified as New Consensus Macroeconomics, methodological commitments binding paradigm and scientific community, and assess the practice of the community, particularly the treatment of anomalies. Subsequently, an attempt is made to illuminate whether/how sociological (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
  5.  38
    From Freakonomics to Political Economy.Ben Fine & Dimitris Milonakis - 2012 - Historical Materialism 20 (3):81-96.
    In this response to the symposium on our two books we try to deal as fully as possible in the brief space available with most of the major issues raised by our distinguished commentators. Although at least three of them are in agreement with the main thrust of the arguments put forward in our books, they all raise important issues relating to methodology, the history of economic thought, and a number of more specific issues. Our answer is based on the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  6.  59
    Dialectics and Crisis Theory: A Response to Tony Smith.Dimitris Milonakis, Costas Lapavitsas & Ben Fine - 2000 - Historical Materialism 6 (1):133-138.
    Brenner's ‘The Economics of Global Turbulence’ has induced a flood of responses, the vast majority of them critical, especially on grounds of method and theory. Tony Smith1 is an exception in seeking to defend Brenner, mostly by pushing his arguments further and by attacking his critics, including ourselves. In part, Smith interprets Brenner and credits him with positions that he can either defend for himself or, as we suspect, reject. Our concern in this reply is not to address issues through (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation