A scheme for comparing competing claims in economics: JEL classification B4 economic methodology (B41 General) 04 economic growth and aggregate productivity (O40 General)

J P Marney, Heather Tarbert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to suggest a general scheme for the examination of claims to scientific authority. The formulation of a scheme within which rational discourse can take place, and comparisons
between competing paradigms can be made, is argued to have particular urgency for the neoclassicists in the light of the emergence of increasingly vociferous dissenting schools in economics, who see themselves either as
the opponents of neoclassicism, or not in full agreement with mainstream neoclassicism. No strong position is taken on the relative merits of either camp, as the primary purpose of the paper is to suggest a way of achieving
meaningful dialogue through explicit recognition of the way in which research is done. It is argued that a functional descriptive mapping scheme for distinguishing between competing claims may be derived from the
work of Ziman, Stewart and, to some extent, Kuhn. By way of example, the suggested framework is used to examine neoclassical claims in the area of growth theory.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3-29
Number of pages27
Journal Journal of Inter-Disciplinary Economics
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Authority
JEL classification
Economics
Paradigm
Discourse
Economic growth
Aggregate productivity
Economic methodology
Growth theory

Cite this

@article{3cb46c99d6eb4f168506cd63775287a6,
title = "A scheme for comparing competing claims in economics: JEL classification B4 economic methodology (B41 General) 04 economic growth and aggregate productivity (O40 General)",
abstract = "The main purpose of this paper is to suggest a general scheme for the examination of claims to scientific authority. The formulation of a scheme within which rational discourse can take place, and comparisonsbetween competing paradigms can be made, is argued to have particular urgency for the neoclassicists in the light of the emergence of increasingly vociferous dissenting schools in economics, who see themselves either asthe opponents of neoclassicism, or not in full agreement with mainstream neoclassicism. No strong position is taken on the relative merits of either camp, as the primary purpose of the paper is to suggest a way of achievingmeaningful dialogue through explicit recognition of the way in which research is done. It is argued that a functional descriptive mapping scheme for distinguishing between competing claims may be derived from thework of Ziman, Stewart and, to some extent, Kuhn. By way of example, the suggested framework is used to examine neoclassical claims in the area of growth theory.",
author = "Marney, {J P} and Heather Tarbert",
year = "1999",
doi = "10.1177/02601079X99001000103",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "3--29",
journal = "Journal of Inter-Disciplinary Economics",
issn = "0260-1079",
publisher = "Sage Publications India Pvt. Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A scheme for comparing competing claims in economics

T2 - JEL classification B4 economic methodology (B41 General) 04 economic growth and aggregate productivity (O40 General)

AU - Marney, J P

AU - Tarbert, Heather

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - The main purpose of this paper is to suggest a general scheme for the examination of claims to scientific authority. The formulation of a scheme within which rational discourse can take place, and comparisonsbetween competing paradigms can be made, is argued to have particular urgency for the neoclassicists in the light of the emergence of increasingly vociferous dissenting schools in economics, who see themselves either asthe opponents of neoclassicism, or not in full agreement with mainstream neoclassicism. No strong position is taken on the relative merits of either camp, as the primary purpose of the paper is to suggest a way of achievingmeaningful dialogue through explicit recognition of the way in which research is done. It is argued that a functional descriptive mapping scheme for distinguishing between competing claims may be derived from thework of Ziman, Stewart and, to some extent, Kuhn. By way of example, the suggested framework is used to examine neoclassical claims in the area of growth theory.

AB - The main purpose of this paper is to suggest a general scheme for the examination of claims to scientific authority. The formulation of a scheme within which rational discourse can take place, and comparisonsbetween competing paradigms can be made, is argued to have particular urgency for the neoclassicists in the light of the emergence of increasingly vociferous dissenting schools in economics, who see themselves either asthe opponents of neoclassicism, or not in full agreement with mainstream neoclassicism. No strong position is taken on the relative merits of either camp, as the primary purpose of the paper is to suggest a way of achievingmeaningful dialogue through explicit recognition of the way in which research is done. It is argued that a functional descriptive mapping scheme for distinguishing between competing claims may be derived from thework of Ziman, Stewart and, to some extent, Kuhn. By way of example, the suggested framework is used to examine neoclassical claims in the area of growth theory.

U2 - 10.1177/02601079X99001000103

DO - 10.1177/02601079X99001000103

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 3

EP - 29

JO - Journal of Inter-Disciplinary Economics

JF - Journal of Inter-Disciplinary Economics

SN - 0260-1079

IS - 1

ER -