by The History of Economic Thought .[embedded content] Being myself the author of seven books on the history of economic thought, yours truly can’t but applaud Beatrice Cherrier’s plaidoyer for the importance of studying the history of economic thought. In many doctrinal historical works, there is a tendency to read history in reverse. This often leads to only presenting the theories and thinkers that have anticipated or presented what constitutes today’s established knowledge. In the present day, this orthodoxy within economics is represented by mainstream theory, serving as a benchmark for what should be presented and what should be disregarded. However, such a way of writing the history of science is flawed. Instead of self-imposed one-dimensionality, we
Topics:
Lars Pålsson Syll considers the following as important: Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes En statsbudget för Sveriges bästa
Lars Pålsson Syll writes MMT — debunking the deficit myth
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Daniel Waldenströms rappakalja om ojämlikheten
Peter Radford writes AJR, Nobel, and prompt engineering
The History of Economic Thought
.
Being myself the author of seven books on the history of economic thought, yours truly can’t but applaud Beatrice Cherrier’s plaidoyer for the importance of studying the history of economic thought.
In many doctrinal historical works, there is a tendency to read history in reverse. This often leads to only presenting the theories and thinkers that have anticipated or presented what constitutes today’s established knowledge. In the present day, this orthodoxy within economics is represented by mainstream theory, serving as a benchmark for what should be presented and what should be disregarded.
However, such a way of writing the history of science is flawed. Instead of self-imposed one-dimensionality, we need a broader perspective. Non-orthodox — heterodox — economic theories have always existed and still constitute a large and diverse field within the domain of economics. By studying the history of economic theories, we can gain greater knowledge and understanding of both orthodoxy and its alternatives.
The extent to which economic knowledge has grown over time and whether there has been any progress in economic theory is a debated question. If one claims that economists have always fundamentally used the same theory, which has been refined and expanded over time, it becomes easy to dismiss heterodox theories as erroneous views that have been replaced by truths through scientific progress. With such a view, the development of economic theory is seen as a constant accumulation of new truths within the framework of the established theory. Economics is perceived as a ‘Darwinian’ discipline where the latest link in the evolutionary chain encompasses all previous stages of development, and where all previous forms of theory have been outcompeted and can be dismissed as incorrect. On the other hand, if one perceives the history of economic science as a continuous and ongoing struggle between different theories, with shifts in problem formulation, research methods, and conceptual frameworks constantly taking place, it becomes difficult to maintain this ‘accumulation view’ of the development of economic theory. The emergence of classical economics in the late 18th century, the marginalist revolution in the 1870s, and the Keynesian revolution in the 1930s are examples of dramatic changes in economic theory that are hard to reconcile with such a view.
Economic theories are essential to study because, in many important contexts, they — and not just reality itself — determine the choices we make and how we act. That is why it is crucial to study the images of reality that economists create. These images play a role in influencing how we plan our lives and build our societies.