The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Assumptions Controversy

  • Lawrence A. Boland
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_2601

Today, any reference to an ‘assumptions controversy’ immediately calls to mind the many critical reactions to Milton Friedman’s famous 1953 essay. But historians of economic thought will also point out that there was an assumptions controversy going back to the mid-19th century involving John Stuart Mill, John Elliot Cairnes and Nassau Senior (for an excellent review of this ‘old’ assumptions controversy, see Hirsch 1980). This old controversy was mainly between Mill and Senior and was about whether economics was an empirical science or a hypothetical one. The controversy was mediated by Cairnes and ultimately decided in his favour. For Cairnes, economic theory was true ‘because it rested on premises which were undeniably true’ (Hirsch 1980, p. 105). But any application of theory can be compromised by ‘disturbing causes’ and so the application needed ‘to be compared with the facts’ to see just what disturbing causes needed ‘to be added in specific instances to make theory and facts...

Keywords

Assumptions controversy Cairnes, J. E. Induction Instrumentalism Methodology of economics Mill, J. S. New Deal Operationalism Perfect competition Robbins, L. C. Senior, N. W. Testing 

JEL Classifications

B4 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Bibliography

  1. Bear, D.V.T., and D. Orr. 1967. Logic and expediency in economic theorizing. Journal of Political Economy 75: 188–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boland, L. 1979. A critique of Friedman’s critics. Journal of Economic Literature 17: 503–522.Google Scholar
  3. Boland, L. 2003. Methodological criticism vs. ideology and hypocrisy. Journal of Economic Methodology 10: 521–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Alessi, L. 1965. Economic theory as a language. Quarterly Journal of Economics 79: 472–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Alessi, L. 1971. Reversals of assumptions and implications. Journal of Political Economy 79: 867–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman, M. 1953. The methodology of positive economics. In Essays in positive economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Haavelmo, T. 1944. Probability approach to econometrics. Econometrica 12(Suppl): 1–118.Google Scholar
  8. Hirsch, A. 1980. The ‘assumptions’ controversy in historical perspective. Journal of Economic Issues 14: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koopmans, T. 1957. Three essays on the state of economic science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Melitz, J. 1965. Friedman and Machlup on the significance of testing economic assumptions. Journal of Political Economy 73: 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nagel, E. 1963. Assumptions in economic theory. American Economics Review 53: 211–219.Google Scholar
  12. Robbins, L. 1935. An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. Rotwein, E. 1959. On the methodology of positive economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 73: 554–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Samuelson, P.A. 1963. Problems of methodology: Discussion. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 53: 231–236.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence A. Boland
    • 1
  1. 1.