Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Methodology in action

2010; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 17; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13501780903528929

1469-9427

Roger E. Backhouse,

Economic, financial, and policy analysis

Abstract This essay addresses the question, raised by Frank Hahn, of whether the study, by economists, of economic methodology is in practice beneficial. After considering what this statement could mean, and discussing the example of Lionel Robbins, it draws a number of conclusions: that methodological statements have unintended, context-dependent consequences, and that these may result from factors that should have nothing to do with economics. Keywords: economic methodologyeconomic theoryeconometricsRobbins Acknowledgements The paucity of references and the extent of self-citation are because this paper draws together ideas from a number of recent papers on Robbins's Essay, some written with co-authors: Steven Durlauf, Steven G. Medema and Tamotsu Nishizawa. They should, however, not be blamed for the use I have made of this work. I am grateful to Steven G. Medema, Warren J. Samuels and E. Roy Weintraub for invaluable criticisms of an earlier draft. Notes 1. Had his argument relied on the opportunity costs of time spent on methodology, it would have been harder to respond. He might have been making the weaker argument that the opportunity costs of studying methodology outweigh any benefits that may be derived from it, but it was natural to take him to be questioning whether the benefits were indeed positive. Because the opportunity cost of time spent studying methodology cannot be tied down, I leave that issue aside. 2. I discuss Weintraub (Citation1989) and Blaug (Citation1992) below. McCloskey (Citation1986) can be seen as doing something similar, but I see her as attacking a specific methodology (positivism) rather than the activity of engaging in methodology per se. 3. This conclusion can be defended even if one considers that Weintraub is inconsistent in using a methodological argument to deny the legitimacy of making methodological arguments. See Mäki (Citation1994) for a critique and citations of several other reactions to Weintraub's article. 4. See Hutchison (Citation2009). 5. Mäki (Citation1994) disagrees with the argument because he questions whether it is based on a coherent account of Methodology. 6. This point has been argued carefully in relation to the United States. See the papers contained in Morgan and Rutherford (Citation1998) and also Bateman (Citation2008). There may have been more homogeneity in Britain, though it is not clear that this was the case (see Tribe Citation2008) but taking an international view, without question, reveals a pluralistic discipline. Backhouse and Nishizawa (Citation2010) and Backhouse (Citation2009b) make such a case for welfare economics in Britain. 7. Evidence to support the claims made in this paragraph are in Backhouse and Durlauf (Citation2009). 8. Backhouse and Durlauf (Citation2009) take this point further. 9. Robbins (Citation1935, pp. 149–150) reprints this remark with minor stylistic changes. It is perhaps worth noting that he does not explain precisely how understanding ethics will assist in working out how to achieve ends that are not to be questioned. 10. Many of these are well known, but for broad perspectives see Morgan and Rutherford (Citation1998), Solow (1995), Backhouse (Citation2002), Morgan (Citation2005) and Backhouse (Citation2008). 11. Roy Weintraub has raised the intriguing question of how far economists were influenced by Robbins's persona and influence, and how far by the book. Though to explore this would reinforce the argument made here, it goes beyond the scope of this paper. 12. On other controversies, see Backhouse (Citation2003, Citation2009a). 13. This draws extensively on Backhouse and Medema (Citation2009a) in which the evidence to back up these claims is laid out at length. 14. The exception was Murray Rothbard who recognised, in Robbins, a fellow praxeologist. 15. The text in this and the following three paragraphs offers an abbreviated and modified version of material in Backhouse and Medema (Citation2009b). 16. Note that this is not claiming that Robbins caused these developments to take place. See the discussion above. 17. I have pursued that question elsewhere, in the context of welfare economics (Backhouse Citation2009b) and empirical work (Backhouse and Durlauf Citation2009). 18. It could be argued that exactly the same problem arises within economics. Economic theory is about generalisation, which means that economic processes that defy generalisation, at least given the current stock of concepts and techniques, will be neglected. There is no reason to believe that this will correspond to the relative importance in practice.