Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender And Economic Research

  • Chapter
Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics

Part of the book series: Recent Economic Thought ((RETH,volume 27))

Abstract

Economists have long aspired to have their work accorded the status of science, and toward that end they have appropriated (or adapted) the positivist/empiricist methodologies of the natural sciences, including the ideal of value-free inquiry.’ Though philoso-phers have in recent decades drastically pruned the epistemic authority associated with science, scientists’ prestige and power in the world outside philosophy departments shows no signs of diminishing. Writing on economic methodology has become much more voluminous and philosophically sophisticated, so economists are increasingly likely to have heard the news that “positivism is dead.”2But they seem little inclined to alter their practice¡ªand there is little agreement among methodologists as to just how economic practice should be affected.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Agarwal, B. (1990), “Social Security and the Family: Coping with Seasonality and Calamity in Rural India.”Journal of Peasant Studies17(3), 341–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, M. (1988)Woman’s Oppression Today: Problems in Marxist Feminist Analysis.Second edition. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, N. S. (1983). “How the Study of Women Has Restructured the Discipline of Economics.” In Elizabeth Langland and Walter Gove, eds.A Feminist Perspective in the Academy: The Difference It Makes.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. S. (1976)The Economic Approach to Human Behavior.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beechey, V. (1987)Unequal Work.London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, B. (1986)The Economic Emergence of Women.New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, B. (1987), “The Task of a Feminist Economics: A More Equitable Future.” In Christie Farnham, ed.The Impact of Feminist Research in the Academy.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, B. (1989), “Does the Market for Women’s Labor Need Fixing?”Journal of Economic Perspectives 3(Winter), 43–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F. D. (1984), “Discrimination Against Women: Theory and Evidence.” In William Darity, Jr., ed.Labor Economics: Modern Views.Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F. D.. (1987), “Gender.” In John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman, eds.The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economic Theory 4vols. New York: The Stockton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F. D. and Ferber, M. (1986)The Economics of Women Men and Work.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaug, M. (1980)The Methodology of Economics.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, R. (1984)Science and Gender: A Critique of Biology and Its Theories on Women.New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleier, R. ed. (1986)Feminist Approaches to Science.New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland, Lawrence A. (1982)The Foundations of Economic Method.Boston: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordo, S. (1986), “The Cartesian Masculinization of Thought,”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 11(Spring), 439–56. Reprinted in Harding and O’Barr, 1987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boserup, E. (1987), “Inequality Between the Sexes.” In John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman, eds.The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics.4 vols. New York: The Stockton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. J. (1989), Gender and Economic Analysis: A Feminist Perspective. Paper presented at the American Economic Association annual meeting.Twentieth Century.Boston: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. J.. (1984)Appraisal and Criticism in Economics: A Book of Readings.Boston: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carling, A. (1986), “Rational Choice Marxism,”New Left Review160: 24–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, J. R. (1975), “Review Essay: Economics,”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1(1) (Autumn), 139–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciancanelli, P. and Berch, B. (1987), “Gender and the GNP.” In Beth B. Hess and Myra Marx Ferree, eds.Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research.Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSWEP (Committee on the Status of Women in the Economics Profession). (1989), “Annual Report 1988.”American Economic Review 77(May), 422–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Marchi, N., ed. (1988)The Popperian Legacy in Economics.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (1985)Making Sense of Marx.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J.. (1989), “Social Norms and Economic Theory,”Journal of Economic Perspectives3 (4) (Fall), 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, P. (1989), “A Feminist Critique of Rational Choice Theories: Implications for Sociology,”The American Sociologist20 (Spring), 14–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farnham, C., ed. (1987)The Impact of Feminist Research in the Academy.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985)Myths of Gender: Biological Theories About Women and Men.New York: Basic BooksMarian Lowe and Ruth Hubbard, eds.Woman’s Nature: Rationalizations of Inequality.New York: Pergamon Press..

    Google Scholar 

  • Fausto-Sterling, A..(1986), “Critiques of Modern Science: TheRelationship of Feminism to Other Radical Epistemologies.” In Ruth Bleier, ed.Feminist Approaches to Science.New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feiner, S. F. and Morgan. B. A. (1987), “Women and Minorities in Introductory Economics Textbooks: 1974 to 1984,”Journal of Economic Education18 (Fall), 376–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feiner, S. F. and Morgan. B. A., and Roberts, B. B. (1990), “Hidden by theInvisible Hand: Neoclassical Economic Theory and the Textbook Treatment of Race and Gender,”Gender and Society4 (June), 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M. A. (1982), “Women and Work: Issues of the 1980’s,”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society8 (Winter), 273–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M. A., and Birnbaum, B. G. (1977), “The `New HomeEconomics:’ Retrospects and Prospects,”Journal of Consumer Research(June), 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferber, M. A., and Teiman, M. L. (1981), “The Oldest, theMost Established, the Most Quantitative of the Social Sciences¡ªand the Most Dominated by Men: The Impact of Feminism on Economics.” In Dale Spender, ed.Men’s Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the Academic Disciplines.NewYork: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flax, J. (1983), “Political Philosophy and the Patriarchal Unconscious: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Epistemology and Metaphysics.” In Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka, eds.Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology Metaphysics Methodology and Philosophy of Science.Boston and Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flax, J.(1987), “Postmodernism and Gender RelationsSociety12 (Summer), 621–43. Reprinted in Nicholson, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N. (1982), “Exploitation Comes Home: A Critique of the Marxian Theory of Family Labor,”Cambridge Journal of Economics317–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N. (1983), “Of Patriarchy Born: ThePoliticalEconomy of Fertility Decisions,”Feminist Studies9 (Summer), 269–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N.(1984), “Household Production in the Philip-pines: A Non-Folbre, N. (1986), ”Hearts and Spades: Paradigms ofHousehold Economics,“World Development14, 245-.255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N. and Hartmann, H. (1988), “The Rhetoric of SelfInterest and the Ideology of Gender.” In Arjo Klamer, Donald N. McCloskey, and Robert M. Solow, eds.The Consequences of Economic Rhetoric.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1980)Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–77.Edited by Colin Gordon. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1953)“The Methodology of Positive Economics.”InEssays in Positive Economics.Chicago:. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gornick, V. (1983)Women in Science: Portraits from a World in Transition.New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1981)The Mismeasure of Man.New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. (1981), “In the Beginning Was the Word: The Genesis of Biological Theory,”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society6 (Spring), 469–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. ed. (1987a), Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D.(1987b), “The Method Question,”Hypatia2(Fall), 19–35. Reprinted in Tuana, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. and O’Barr, J. F., eds. (1987), Sex and Scientific Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, H. (1976), “Capitalism, Patriarchy and Job Segregation by Sex,”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society1 (3 pt. 2) (Spring), 137–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, H. (1981a), “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxismand Feminism.” In Lydia Sargent, ed.Women and Revolution.Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, H.. (198 1 b), “The Family as the Locus of Gender,Class and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 6 (Spring), 366–94. Reprinted in Harding, 1987a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, H... (1987), “Changes in Women’s Economic andFamily Roles in Post-World War II United States.” In Lourdes Beneria and Catharine R. Stimpson, eds.Women Households and the Economy.New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartsock, N. C. M. (1983a), “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism.” In Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka, eds.Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology Metaphysics Methodology and Philosophy of Science.Boston and Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartsock, N. C. M.(1983b)Money Sex and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism.New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkesworth, M. E. (1989), “Knowers, Knowing, Known: Feminist Theory and Claims of Truth,”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society14 (Spring), 533–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, B. and Ferree, M. M., eds. (1987)Analyzing Gender: A Handbook of Social Science Research.Newbury Park: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. (1986), “Behind Methodological Individualism,”Cambridge Journal of Economics 10211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, R., Henifin, M. S., and Fried, B., eds. (1982)Biological Woman: The Convenient Myth.Cambridge: Schenkman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, J. (1987), “Women and Work.” In John Eatwell, Murray Milgate and Peter Newman, eds.The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economic Theory.4 vols. New York: The Stockton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, J. and Rubery, J. (1984), “The Reconstitution of

    Google Scholar 

  • the Supply Side of the Labour Market: The Relative Autonomy of Social Reproduction,“Cambridge Journal of Economics8, 331–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggar, A. (1983)Feminist Politics and Human Nature.Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allenheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1983)A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock.San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1985)Reflections on Gender and Science.New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F.. (1987), “The Gender/Science System: or, Is Sexto Gender As Nature Is to Science?” Hypatia, 2 (Fall), 37–49. Reprinted in Tuana, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamer, A. (1984)Conversations With Economists: New Classical Economists and Their Opponents Speak Out on the Current Controversy in Macroeconomics.Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamer, A.. (1987), “As If Economists and Their Subjectsand Argument in Scholarship and Public Affairs.Madison:University of Wisc

    Google Scholar 

  • Klamer, A.. (1988), “Economics as Discourse.” In Neil deMarchi, ed.The Popperian Legacy in Economics.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970)The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LadnerJ. (1971)Introduction to Tomorrow’s Tomorrow: The Black Woman.New York: Doubleday & Co. Reprinted in Harding 1987a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S., ed. (1973)The Death of White Sociology.NewYork: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, C. B. and Niemi, B. T. (1979)The Economics of Sex Differentials.New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, G. (1984)The Man of Reason: “Male” and “Female” in Western Philosophy.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1987), “Can There Be A Feminist Science?”Hypatia2 (3) (Fall), 51–64.Reprinted in Tuana, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E.. (1990)Science as Social Knowledge: Valuesand Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. and Doell, R. (1983), “Body, Bias, and Behav-ior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science,”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society9(Winter)206–27.Reprinted in Harding and O’Barr, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lugones, M. C. and Spelman. E. V. (1983), “Have We Got a Theory for You! Feminist Theory, Cultural Imperialism and the Demand for `The Woman’s Voice’,”Women’s Studies International Forum6, 573–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorde, A. (1984)Sister Outsider.Trumansburg, NY: The Crossing Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukacs, G. (1971)History and Class Consciousness.Trans. Rodney Livingstone. London: Merlin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundahl, M. and Wadensjo, E. (1984)Unequal Treatment: A Study in the Neo-Classical Theory of Discrimination.New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manser, M. and Brown, M. (1979), “Bargaining Analyses of Household Decisions.” In Cynthia Lloyd, Emily Andrews and C. Gilroy, eds.Women in the Labor Market.New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, W. L. and Raj, B., eds. (1983)How Economists Explain:A Reader in Methodology.Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, R. (1974), “The Economics of Racial Discrimination: A Survey,”Journal of Economic Literature12, 849–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. N. (1985a)The Rhetoric of Economics.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, D. N. (1985b), “Some Consequences of a Feminine Economics.” Unpublished paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrate, E. (1987), “Trade, Merger and Employment: Economic Theory on Marriage,”Review of Radical Political Economics19 (Spring), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrate, E.. (1988), “Gender Difference: The Role of Endogenous Preferences and Collective Action,”American Economic Review78 (May), 235–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • McElroy, M. B. and Horney, M. J. (1981)“Nash-Bargained Household Decisions: Toward a Generalization of the Theory of Demand,” International Economic Review22 (June), 333–49.Philosophy. Vol. 3: Epistemology Science Ideology.Brighton: Harvester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merchant, C. (1980)The Death of Nature: Women Ecology and the Scientific Revolution.San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milkman, R. (1986), “Women’s History and the Sears Case,”Feminist Studies12 (Summer), 375–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P. (1986), “Institutions as Solution Concepts in a Game Theory Context.” In Philip Mirowski, ed.The Reconstruction of Economic Theory.Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, P.. (1989)More Heat Than Light.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mohanty, C. T. (1985), “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses,”Boundary2, 333–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Namenwirth, M. (1986), “Science Seen Through a Feminist Prism.” In Ruth Bleier, ed.Feminist Approaches to Science.New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. A. (1987), “Gender and Economic Thought,”CSWEP Newsletter(Oct.), 2–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, J. A.. (1990), Gender, Metaphor, and the Definition of Economics. Working Paper, Department of Economics, University of California-Davis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, L. J., ed. (1990)Feminism/Postmodernism.New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollak, R. A. (1985), “A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households,”Journal of Economic Literature23 (June), 581–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pujol, Michele. (1984), “Gender and Class in Marshall’s Principles of Economics,”Cambridge Journal of Economics8, 217–234.tions of Mobility and Career Attachment of Women,“American Economic Review65 (May), 100–07.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, S. A. and Wolff, R. D. (1987)Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E. (1978), “Neoclassicism, Marxism and Collective Action,”Journal of Economic Issues12 (March), 147–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. E. ed. (1986)Analytical Marxism.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, H. (1986), “Beyond Masculinist Realities: A Feminist Epistemology for the Sciences.” In Ruth Bleier, ed.Feminist Approaches to Science.New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, M. (1982)Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to (1940.Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubery, J. (1987), “Women’s Wages.” In John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman, eds.The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics.4 vols. New York: The Stockton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, C. E. (1989)Sexual Science: The Victorian Construction of Womanhood.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, L. (1989)The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiz, J. A. (1990a), “Comment [on Klamer].” In Warren J. Samuels, ed.Economics as Discourse.Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiz, J. A.. (1990b), Economic Discourse on Race andGender: The Work of the Chicago School. Paper presented at the Mary Ingraham Bunting Institute, Radcliffe College, Feb. 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiz, J. A.. (1990c), The Bargaining Approach and FeministMethodology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Allied Social Science Association. Forthcoming inReview ofRadical Political Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1985), “Women, Technology and Sexual Divisions,”Trade and Development6, 195–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1990), “Gender and Cooperative Conflicts.” In Irene Tinker, ed.Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development.New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. E. (1974), “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology,”Sociological Inquiry44, 7–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. E. (1987)The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology.Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spelman, E. V. (1988)The Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist Thought.Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, D., ed. (1981)Men’s Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the Academic Disciplines.New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stacey, J. and Thorne, B. (1985), “The Missing Feminist Revolution in Sociology,”Social Problems32 (April), 301–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. and Becker, G. S. (1977), “De Gustibus Non Est Dispu-tandum,”American Economic Review67 (March), 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strober, M. H. (1975), “Women Economists: Career Aspirations, Education and Training,”American Economic Review65 (May), 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strober, M. H. and Reagan, B. B. (1976), “Sex Differences in Economists’ Fields of Specialization.”Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 1(3, part 2), 303–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuana, N., ed. (1989)Feminism and Science.Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S. (1986)Patriarchy at Work: Patriarchal and Capitalist Relations in Employment.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westkott, M. (1979), “Feminist Criticism of the Social Sciences,”Harvard Educational Review49 (Nov.), 422–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. M. (1984), “The Methodology and Practice of Modern Labor Economics: A Critique.” In William Darity, Jr., ed.Modern Labor Economics.Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. M.(1988), Beyond Human Capital: Black Worn-en, Work and Wages. Wellesley Center for Research on Women, Working Paper no. 183.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Janet A. Seiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Duke University, USA

    Neil de Marchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Seiz, J.A. (1992). Gender And Economic Research. In: de Marchi, N. (eds) Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics. Recent Economic Thought, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2942-8_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2942-8_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5307-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-2942-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation