Objectivity in economics and the problem of the individual

References

• Andre, P., & Falk, A. (2021). What’s worth knowing? Economists’ opinions about economics,” CRC TR 224 discussion paper series crctr224_2021_308. University of Bonn and University of Mannheim.
   Google Scholar
• Angner, E. (2019). We're all behavioral economists now. Journal of Economic Methodology, 26(3), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1625210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angrist, J., Azoulay, P., Ellison, G., Hill, R., & Lu, S. F. (2017). Economic research evolves: Fields and styles. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 107(5), 293–297. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aristotle. (1984). De interpretatione. In Jonathan Barnes (Ed.), The complete works of aristotle. Princeton University Press. Chapter 9.
   Google Scholar
• Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory: Foundations, development, applications. George Braziller.
   Google Scholar
• Bögenhold, D. (2021). Economics in the social science spectrum: Evolution and overlap with different academic areas. Atlantic Economic Journal, 49(4), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-022-09739-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boumans, M. (1999). Built-in justification. In M. in Morgan, & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 66–96). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boumans, M., & Herfeld, C. (2022). Progress in economics. In S. Yafeng (Ed.), New philosophical perspectives on scientific progress (pp. 224–244). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Chick, V., & Dow, S. (2005). The meaning of open systems. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12(3), 363–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780500223585
   Google Scholar
• Colander, D., Holt, R., & Rosser, B., Jr (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy, 16(4), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953825042000256702
   Google Scholar
• Crespo, R. (2020). The nature and method of economic sciences: Evidence, causality, and ends. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. (2003). The theory of the individual in economics. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. (2006). The turn in economics: Neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism? Journal of Institutional Economics, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137405000263
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. (2007). The turn in recent economics and return of orthodoxy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32(3), 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bem048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. (2011). Individuals and Identity in Economics. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. (2017). Is mainstream economics a science bubble? Review of Political Economy, 29(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2017.1388983
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. (2020). Belief reversals as phase transitions and economic fragility: A complexity theory of financial cycles with reflexive agents. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, 1(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43253-020-00009-0
   Google Scholar
• Davis, J. (2023). Sheila Dow’s open systems methodology. In I. Negru, & P. Hawkins (Eds.), Economic methodology, history and pluralism (pp. 31–47). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. (1970). Strategies of multiple triangulation. In N. in Denzin (Ed.), The research Act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological method (pp. 297–313). McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Dequech, D. (2007). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30(2), 279–302. https://doi.org/10.2753/PKE0160-3477300207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Vroey, M., & Pensieroso, L. (2021). “Grounded in methodology, certified by journals: The rise and evolution of a mainstream in economics,” LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2021015, Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
   Google Scholar
• Dow, S. (2004). Structured pluralism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(3), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178042000252965
   Google Scholar
• Dow, S. (2021). Economic methodology, the philosophy of economics and the economy: another turn? Journal of Economic Methodology, 28(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2020.1868771
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downward, P., & Mearman, A. (2006). Retroduction as mixed-methods triangulation in economic research: Reorienting economics into social science. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(1), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emery, N., Markosian, N., & Sullivan, M. (2020). Time. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/time/.
   Google Scholar
• Fourcade, M., Ollion, E., & Algan, Y. (2015). The Superiority of Economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.1.89
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gale, R. (ed.). (1967). The philosophy of time. Anchor Doubleday, 65–85.
   Google Scholar
• Giocoli, N. (2003). Modeling Rational Agents: From Interwar Economics to Early Modern Game Theory. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Hamermesh, D. (2013). Six decades of Top economics publishing: Who and How? Journal of Economic Literature, 51(1), 162–172. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.1.162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hands, D. W. (2001). Reflection without rules: Economic methodology and contemporary science theory. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S., & Grüne-Yanoff, T. (2022). Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics, and Psychology. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Heckman, J., & Moktam, S. (2020). Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the Top five. Journal of Economic Literature, 58(2), 419–470. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20191574
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodgson, G. (2012). On the limits of rational choice theory. Economic Thought, 1(1), 94–108.
   Google Scholar
• Hoover, K., & Svorenčík, A. (2020). “Who runs the AEA?” Center for the History of Political Economy Working Paper, No. 2020-12, Duke University.
   Google Scholar
• Jo, T.-H., Chester, L., & D’Ippoliti, C. (eds.). (2017). The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics: Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (2003). Reorienting economics. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (2006). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei093
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (2023). Categorisation, criticism and pluralism in context. In I. Negru, & P. Hawkins (Eds.), Economic methodology, history and pluralism (pp. 48–60). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, F. S. (2009). A history of heterodox economics: Challenging the mainstream in the twentieth century. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press. University Press: Bk. V, Ch. 33; also in Gale (1967): 86-97.
   Google Scholar
• Moscati, I. (2018). Measuring utility: From the marginal revolution to behavioral economics. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2015). “Oecd science, technology and industry policy papers,” OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris, Retrieved 20 April, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en.
   Google Scholar
• Plato. (1941). The Republic of Plato, trans. with introduction and notes by F. M. Cornford. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1959; 1934). The logic of scientific discovery, translation of logik der forschung. Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Primrose, D., Stilwell, F., & Thornton, T. (eds.). (2022). Elgar handbook of alternative theories of political Economy. Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Reiss, J., & Sprenger, J. (2020). Scientific objectivity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter Edition). Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/scientific-objectivity/.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrik, D. (2015). Economics rules: The rights and wrongs of the dismal science. W. W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Ross, D. (2022). Economics is converging with sociology but not with psychology. Journal of Economic Methodology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2049854
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (2001). Economics (17th ed). McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042769
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106(6), 467–482.
   Google Scholar
• Soros, G. (2013). Fallibility, reflexivity, and the human uncertainty principle. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20(4), 309–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2013.859415
   Google Scholar
• Starr, M. (2014). Qualitative and mixed-methods research in economics: Surprising growth, promising future. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(2), 238–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugden, R. (2018). The community of advantage: A behavioural economist’s defence of the market. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Truc, A. (2022). Interdisciplinary influences in behavioral economics: a bibliometric analysis of cross-disciplinary citations. Journal of Economic Methodology, 29(3), 217–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2021.2011374
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UNESCO [61719]. (2021). “UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science,” SC-PCB-SPP/2021/OS/UROS; Retrieved 21 January 2021, from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949.locale=en.
   Google Scholar
• Weintraub, R. (2002). How economics became a mathematical science. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations, translated by G. E. M. Anscombe (3rd ed). Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. (1974). On certainty, edited by G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright, translated by Denis Paul and G.E.M. Anscombe, Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar