In this paper, I aim to discuss New Political Economy as a label for the economic analysis of politics, in the English language. The term 'political economy' itself, although it has ceased to be the preferred term by which economists refer to their discipline, it is still being used by a variety of scholars, especially for interdisciplinary research with political science, international relations and other social sciences. Marxist- inspired social scientists also have a claim on the term 'political economy'. The (...) term gained relevance again with economists, in the 1950s, thanks to various critiques of orthodox economics, especially to the theory of economic policy and to economic planning. They ignored issues of political economy, such as the self- interest of politicians. The public choice movement revived these issues by applying rational choice theory to politics and preferred the label “public choice” to designate its movement. Scholars and traditions not affiliated with the public choice movement prefer the label '(new) political economy' to refer to their own economic analysis of politics. The search for a proper label is still ongoing, but they show how they can differentiate their objectives and affiliations. (shrink)

Scientific pluralism, a normative endorsement of the plurality or multiplicity of research approaches in science, has recently been advocated by several philosophers (e.g., Kellert et al. 2006, Kitcher 2001, Longino 2013, Mitchell 2009, and Chang 2010). Comparing these accounts of scientific pluralism, one will encounter quite some variation. We want to clarify the different interpretations of scientific pluralism by showing how they incarnate different models of democracy, stipulating the desired interaction among the plurality of research approaches in different ways. Furthermore, (...) the example of scientific pluralism is used to advocate the application of democratic theory to philosophy of science problems in general. Drawing on the parallels between models of science and models of democracy, we can articulate how the plurality of research approaches in science should interact within a democratic framework as well as how to cultivate multiple research approaches in the epistemically most productive way possible. This will not only improve our understanding of scientific plurality, but it can also help us stipulating how different research approaches should interact to constitute the most objective account possible or how the ideal of scientific consensus has to be understood. Ultimately, developing democratic models of science bears on the question of how deeply science and democracy are entwined. (shrink)