Abstract
Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In each case, at least one of the pioneers in those areas who helped them achieve mainstream acceptability has won the Nobel prize in economics: James Buchanan for public choice, Douglass North for the new institutional economics, and Vernon Smith for experimental economics.
This brings to mind a comment a colleague of mine made over lunch that “If you haven’t shown it in a general equilibrium model, you don’t know it’s true.” Because all models, including general equilibrium models, are simpler than the real world, if you have shown it in a general equilibrium model you also don’t know it’s true. Lunchtime conversations do not carry the same weight as journal articles in print, so this observation is relegated to a footnote, but it illustrates his commitment of one researcher to undertaking research within a specific theoretical framework.
See, for example, Coleman (1990), who applied economic ideas to take a rational choice approach to sociology, making a substantial impact in that discipline and altering the dominant paradigm.
References
Arrow, K. J., & Debreu, G. (1954). Existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy. Econometrica, 22, 265–290.
Bator, F. M. (1957). The simple analytics of welfare maximization. American Economic Review, 47, 22–59.
Blaug, M. (1980). The methodology of economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boettke, P. J (2007) Methodological Pluralism and the Austrian School of Economics? Available at: (http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/12/methodological.html). Accessed 5 Aug 2010.
Boland, L. A. (1982). The foundations of economic method. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Caldwell, B. J. (1982). Beyond positivism: economic methodology in the twentieth century. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Dow, S. C. (2002). Methodological pluralism and pluralism of method. In G. Hodgson (Ed.), A modern reader in institutional and evolutionary economics (pp. 136–146). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fullbrook, E. (2005) Concealed ideologies: a PAE view of ideology in economics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Heterodox Economics, London.
Garnett, R. F., Jr. (2010). Why Should Austrian Economists Be Pluralists? Review of Austrian Economics.
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 519–530.
Hicks, J. R. (1939). Value and capital: an inquiry into some fundamental principles of economic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holcombe, R. G. (1989). Economic models and methodology. New York: Greenwood Press.
Holcombe, R. G. (2008). Pluralism versus heterodoxy in economics and the social sciences. Journal of Philosophical Economics, 1(2), 51–72.
Kagel, J. H., Battalio, R. C., Rachlin, H., & Green, L. (1981). Demand curves for animal consumers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 96, 1–16.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1991). Anomalies: the endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landreth, H., & Colander, D. C. (2002). History of economic thought (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lawson, T. (2003). Reorienting economics. London and New York: Routledge.
Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 3, 483–505.
McCloskey, D. M. (1985). The rhetoric of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Phillips, A. W. (1958). The Relation Between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1862–1957. Economica, 25, 283–299.
Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Samuelson, P. A. (1983). My life philosophy. The American Economist, 27(2), 5–12.
Samuelson, P. A., & Solow, R. M. (1960). Analytical aspects of anti-inflation policy. American Economic Review, 40, 177–194.
Smith, V. (1994). Economics in the laboratory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 113–131.
Stigler, G. J., & Becker, G. S. (1977). De Gustibus Non Est Desputandum. American Economic Review, 67, 76–90.
Subrick, J. R., & Young, A. T. (2010). Nobelity and Novelty: Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott’s contributions viewed from Vienna. Review of Austrian Economics, 23(1), 35–53.
Van de Graaf, J. (1957). Theoretical welfare economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Holcombe, R.G. Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology. Rev Austrian Econ 24, 57–65 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-010-0125-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-010-0125-1