Depuis la parution, en 1950, du célèbre article d'Armen Alchian, il est devenu assez fréquent d'invoquer la sélection naturelle pour appuyer certaines conclusions de l'économie néoclassique. Toute sélection n'étant toutefois pas de type « darwinien », il importe de bien distinguer les arguments qui invoquent la sélection naturelle au sens strict et les arguments crypto-téléologiques qui s'apparenteraientplutôt à un évolutionnisme de type lamarckien. A l'aide de quelques exemples fictifs, dont deux sont empruntés à un essai méthodologique de Milton Friedman de (...) 1953, il est soutenu que les économistes doivent choisir entre des explications prétendument fondées sur la sélection naturelle et des explications fondées sur le principe de rationalité. Plus généralement, il est montré en conclusion, à l'aide de deux exemples supplémentaires, que les explications reposant sur des mécanismes impersonnels et celles reposant sur des activités intentionnelles ne peuvent être invoquées concurremment.Since the publication of Alchian's famous article of 1950, it has become relatively common to invoke natural selection as a justification of various conclusions in neoclassical economics. But because selection is not always of a "Darwinian" type, it is important to distinguish clearly between arguments which invoke natural selection in the strict sense of the word from crypto-teleological arguments which are rather more closely related to a Lamarkian evolutionary approach. With the help of fictional examples, two of which have been borrowed from Milton Friedman's 1953 essay on methodology, it is argued that economists mast choose between explanations supposedly based on natural selection and ones that are based on the principle of rationality. More generally, and with the help of two further examples, it is concluded that explanations based on a anonymous mechanism and those based on intentional activities can not be invoked concurrently. (shrink)

Discoverers of “market failures” as well as advocates of the general efficiency of a “true, unhampered market” sometimes seem to disregard the fundamental fact that there is no such thing as a “market as such.” What we call a market is always a system of social interaction characterized by a specific institutional framework, that is, by a set of rules defining certain restrictions on the behavior of the market participants, whether these rules are informal, enforced by private sanctions, or formal, (...) enforced by a particular agency, the “protective state,” in J. M. Buchanan's terminology. (shrink)

The Reformation, it has been said, changed the course of history. Most people would agree. At the very least, agree or not, they would hold the proposition to be one worth considering. They would be unlikely to reject it out of hand as incapable of being either true or false because it had no meaning. For, of course, “everybody knows” what the Reformation was and, elaborating a little, we can make clear what we meant by changing the course of history. (...) Yet it is just statements of this sort that cause much methodological wrangling. Their controversial nature is due, in large part, to controversy over the status of such terms as “the Reformation” and, generally, group or macroscopic concepts. Since not only history, but sociology, political science, social psychology, and economics also widely use concepts referring to groups and their properties, rather than to individuals, the controversy has wide ramifications. And because there are, as it were, so many vested interests involved, the dispute also tends to acquire an ideological tone not altogether consonant with dispassionate inquiry. Bad temper and mutual recrimination in scientific discussion are generally a sign that ideological defenses are being shored up. Just possibly, a philosopher whose substantive concern in any empirical field is minimal may hope to be considered above the battle, as one who, having no private axe to grind, can be concerned only with clarifying the logical issues involved. In this hope, I wish to explore as systematically as possible the tangled web of issues woven about the status of group concepts and their relationship to those referring to individuals. Intertwined in this controversy are two different issues. One has to do with the nature of the terms or concepts of social science; the other with the nature of its laws and theories and their relationship in turn to those in other areas. The first issue is one of meaning, the second of reduction. Success in unsnarling the various strands of this web may alone help abate the fury of the controversy. (shrink)

Austrian economics - the school of thought associated with Carl Menger, Frederick von Weiser, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, and in this century, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard, and Israel Kirzner - is based on a framework of methodological principles and assumptions much at variance with those of traditional or 'orthodox' economists. Robert Nozick, in his 'On Austrian Methodology', focuses attention on the most fundamental features of this framework, and subjects them to a thoroughgoing and scathing analysis. Singled out (...) for detailed and critical review are: (1) the praxeological concepts of methodological individualism; (2) the claim that economics is an a priori science of human action; (3) the nature of preference and its relation to choice and action; and (4) the assumptions of time-preference theory. Although Nozick does not consider Austrian views on business cycles, market process analysis, the coordinative and informational effects of the price system, competition, and several other fundamental aspects of praxeology, his criticism strikes at the very root of the praxeological school. This paper attempts to refute each criticism made of the praxeological school by Nozick on a point-by-point basis. It thus follows the same pattern as the original paper, and scrutinizes in detail the arguments made by its author. (shrink)