Abstract
The notion of possible has two meaning; first, it denotes the ability to be achieved, second, it denotes the fact that an event or a fact is not certain. Although the notion of possible in economics is not literally used in economics, its meaning is absolutely ubiquitous in that the possible is an inherent part of the scientific enterprise in economics. The prevalent use of the words the “achievable,” “realization,” “feasibility” for the former meaning and of the “likelihood,” the “probability,” or the “potentiality” for the latter attests of the importance of the possible in economics. Inherently, economics tries to predict possible states and the evolution of the economy given the variables that it uses. The possible is constitutive of the episteme of economics as it is central in its main objects of research, that are “value” and “resource allocation,” and in its models and in its empirical methodologies. The possible also plays an important role in its three of its core concepts, namely, production, consumption, and trade. The usage of the possible in economics is prominent in the dialogue that is installed between theoretical and empirical research, in the studying of the robustness of economic institutions, and the implications of economics type of thinking. In theoretical works, the possible is mainly used in the sense of what is achievable or feasible given the available resources. In empirical works, the use of the possible is centered around the search of the explanations that are more likely or more probable.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Banerjee, A., & Somanathan, R. (2001). A simple model of voice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 189–227.
Berger, L., & Marinacci, M. (2020). Model uncertainty in climate change economics: A review and proposed framework for future research. Environmental and Resource Economics, 77, 475–501.
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9–64.
Costinot, A., & Donaldson, D. (2012). Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage: Old idea, new evidence. American Economic Review, 102(3), 453–458.
de Finetti, B. (1931). Sui significato soggettivo del la probabilita. Fundamenta Mathematicae, 17, 298–329.
DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315–372.
Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2012). Putting Ricardo to work. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(2), 65–90.
Goeree, J. K., & Holt, C. A. (2001). Ten little treasures of game theory and ten intuitive contradictions. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1402–1422.
Hansen, P. L., & Sargent, T. J. (2014). Uncertainty within economic models, world scientific series in economic. London: Theory.
Hayek, F. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.
Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2013). Scarcity: Why having too little means so much. New York: Times Books.
Mullainathan, S., & Spiess, J. (2017). Machine learning: An applied econometric approach. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 87–106.
Nash, J. F. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18(2), 155–162.
Onatski, A. (2008). Model uncertainty. In P. Macmillan (Ed.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Phillips, A. W. (1958). The relation between unemployment and the rate of change of money wage rates in the United Kingdom, 1861–1957. Economica, 25(100), 283–299.
Ramsey, E. (1931). Truth and probability. In the foundations of mathematics and other logical essays. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ricardo, D. (1817). On the principles of political economy and taxation (1st ed.). London: John Murray.
Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.
Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In Nussbaum & Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Oxford, Clarendon press.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
Smith, V. (2002). https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2002/smith/biographical/
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1958). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Wakker, P. P. (2008). Uncertainty. In P. Macmillan (Ed.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Walras, L. (1874). Éléments d'économie politique pure, ou, Théorie de la richesse sociale, L. Lausanne: Corbaz; Paris: Guillaumin et Cie; Bâle: H. Georg
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Boulu-Reshef, B. (2021). Possible in Economics. In: The Palgrave Encyclopedia of the Possible. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_23-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98390-5_23-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98390-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98390-5
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences