What are the reasons of theory change in economical science? – The author tries to answer the question utilizing his theory change epistemological model approbated on the natural sciences. Key words: economical theory, theory change, natural science, model.

In the latter half of the 19th century, economic thought in the Germanspeaking world was dominated, both intellectually and academically, by the so-called historical school, from Wilhelm Roscher to Gustav Schmoller and others. In 1871, the Austrian Carl Menger published his Grun&tze der Volkswirtschaftslehre (Menger, 1976 (1871)), customarily referred to as one of the three simultaneous discoveries of marginalist economics-the other two marginalist ‘revolutionaries’ being Jevons in England and Walras in France. Twelve years later, in 1883, Menger published a major (...) methodological treatise entitled Untersuchungen iiber die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der Politischen Oekonomie insbesondere (Menger, 1963 (1883)). This book included criticisms of some of the historicist principles of doing economics. In the same year, Schmoller, leader of the German historicists, wrote a critical review of Menger’s book (Schmoller, 1883). Menger reacted forcefully with a more straightforwardly polemical small book, Die Irrthiimer des Historismus in der deutschen National6konomie (Menger, 1884). Commentaries by others appeared in later years, but this brief episode amounted to what has thereafter been called the Methodenstreit between Menger and Schmoller. It has been established as perhaps the most famous methodological controversy in the history of the social sciences. (shrink)

How do reasons combine? How is it that several reasons taken together can have a combined weight which exceeds the weight of any one alone? I propose an answer in mereological terms: reasons combine by composing a further, complex reason of which they are parts. Their combined weight is the weight of their combination. I develop a mereological framework, and use this to investigate some structural views about reasons, the main two being "Atomism" and "Holism". Atomism is the view that (...) atomic reasons are fundamental: all reasons reduce to atomic reasons. Holism is the view that whole reasons are fundamental. I argue for Holism, and against Atomism. I also consider whether reasons might be "context-sensitive". (shrink)

In the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the paradigm of a new science, political economy, was established. It was a science distinct from the Aristotelian sub-disciplines of practical philosophy named oikonomía and politiké, and emphasis on its character of science not unlike the natural sciences – still called ‘natural philosophy’ – mirrored precisely a willingness to stress its autonomy from two other sub-disciplines of practical philosophy, that is, ethics and politics. However, the new science resulted from a transformation (...) of part of traditional practical philosophy, allowing the inclusion of bodies of knowledge accumulated by experts of commerce and public finance. Such bodies of knowledge were unified by the (true or alleged) discovery of regularities, mechanisms, causal connections making for a new partial order within the overall social order. How far this paved the way to a science similar to mathematics rather left a normative discipline as alive as ever was a recurrent question for at least a century, until the marginalist revolution opened the way for a sharp division, leaving ‘economics’ as a science of causes and effects facing ‘economic policy’ as a discourse on ends. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to address the question why the old Marx was interested in mathematics. While most interpreters argue that his interest was philosophical, it is maintained here that Marx tried to understand the developments of Economics and, particularly, of marginalism and that, in order to fully understand the new theoretical paradigma, he needed to study a particular branch of Mathematics, namely the derivatives.

The aim of this paper is to address the question why the old Marx was interested in mathematics. While most interpreters argue that his interest was philosophical, it is maintained here that Marx tried to understand the developments of Economics and, particularly, of marginalism and that, in order to fully understand the new theoretical paradigma, he needed to study a particular branch of Mathematics, namely the derivatives.

This article aims to contribute to the economic science’s discourse analysis, bringing the concepts of Foucault’s post-structuralism to this debate. We seek to understand the epistemological change in the economy, started in the 80s, without having to resort to a split in social interpretation in abstract cultural spheres (postmodernism) and other material-economic spheres (neoliberalism). The field of rhetoric in economics has sparked an intense debate in the social sciences. The abandonment of Keynesian theses, empirically tested throughout the 20th century, due (...) to the absorption of neoliberal theses was interpreted as an expression of “postmodernity” in economic science. Arida and Paulani’s analysis trace the methodological criticism to the intense mathematization of the economy, to the resumption of premises based on ontologically questionable abstractions without, however, understanding the role of language in structuring the discourse of economic science. It is the search for an adequate ontology that guides the methodological critique of marginalist-neoclassical economic science. Based on Foucault’s concepts, we propose a new ontology for the understanding of the rhetoric field in economics. (shrink)