No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Economics' Fall from Grace
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 October 2010
Extract
Not long ago, many political scientists suffered from economics envy. Some still do. They view economics as the queen of the social sciences, claiming that it is “scientific,” like physics. Physicists and other natural scientists spend most of their time trying to explain phenomena, but non-behavioral micro-economists spend most of their time on mathematical proofs and econometric tests of a priori theories based on intuitive plausibility or principles of “rational action.” Being “scientific” it was alleged, meant that economics could access objective knowledge, knowledge that was said to be true independent of time, place, and circumstance. Robert Bates called on political scientists to do the same by arguing that they should be in search of “lawful regularities which … must not be context bound” (Bates 1997b).
- Type
- Symposium
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010
References
Andrews, Edmund L. 2008. “Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation.” New York Times, October 23. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert. 1997a. “Area Studies and the Discipline: A Useful Controversy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 30 (2): 166–69.Google Scholar
Bates, Robert. 1997b. “Area Studies and Political Science: Rupture and Possible Synthesis.” Africa Today 44 (2): 123.Google Scholar
Cassidy, John. 2010. “Rational Irrationality: Interview with Eugene Fama.” New Yorker, January 10.Google Scholar
Gintis, Herbert. 2006. Review of The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical Remaking of Economics, by Eric D. Beinhocker. Journal of Economic Literature 44 (4): 1018–31.Google Scholar
Laitin, David M. 2005. “The Perestroikan Challenge to Social Science.” In Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen Renwick, 115–35. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, Michael. 2010. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald M. 1990. If You're So Smart: The Narrative of Economic Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
PBS NewsHour. 2008. “Greenspan Admits ‘Flaw’ to Congress, Predicts More Economic Problems” [transcript]. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/crisishearing_10-23.html.Google Scholar
Rudolph, Lloyd I. 2005. “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend: Arguments for Pluralism and against Monopoly in Political Science.” In Perestroika!: The Raucous Rebellion in Political Science, ed. Monroe, Kristen, 230–36. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Steinmo, Sven. 2009–10. “From the President: History and Predictability and Political Science.” Clio 20 (1): 1–38.Google Scholar
Stewart, Sharla A. 2003. “Revolution from Within.” University of Chicago Magazine 95 (6): 32–37.Google Scholar
Sum, Andrew, Khatiwada, Ishwar, and McLaughlin, Joseph, Palma, with Sheila. 2009. “The Economic Recession of 2007–2009: A Comparative Perspective on Its Duration and the Severity of Its Labor Market Impacts.” Boston, MA: Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University.Google Scholar
Woodward, Bob. 2000. Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom. New York: Simon & Shuster/Touchstone.Google Scholar