Lukasz Hardt

As the title of this essay suggests, my concern is with the issue of what are economic models. However, the goal of the paper is not to offer an in-depth study on multiple approaches to modelling in economics, but rather to overcome the dichotomical divide between conceptualizing models as isolations and constructions. This is done by introducing the idea of economic models as believable worlds, precisely descriptions of mechanisms that refer to the essentials of the modelled targets. In doing so I make use of the Woodward’s (2002) conceptualization of mechanisms. It is shown that such models do not offer the perfectly true descriptions of the actual world but justified beliefs about the modelled, precisely they aim at maximizing truth and minimizing falsity in a large body of belief about the real world. The analysis throughout the paper is supported by in-depth examination of the Varian’s (1980) model of sales that is here treated as a representative way of reasoning in neoclassical economics.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the current debate on the state of economics from a methodological perspective. We claim that the majority of contributions criticizing modern economics are not based on clear methodological principles and thus many of them are not correct. We show this with respect to such issues as the problem of realisticness of models and their assumptions, the role of mathematics in economics, the way we conceptualize the relation between economics (theory) and economy (empiria), as well as the general problem of comparing theories. In doing so we use the research apparatus taken form the philosophy of science and also we benefit a lot from recent developments in the philosophy of economics. Finally, we show one of the paradoxes of that debate, namely that many critics of economics accuse economists of using the wrong language (mathematics) while they do not use proper language themselves while criticizing economics, namely the apparatus taken from the philosophy of science.

My purpose is to appraise the recent critique of theoretical economics by applying the methodological perspective. Therefore, I start by identifying the main lines of criticism raised against theoretical economics in the aftermath of the post-2008 global economic crisis: namely, the voices criticizing economics for its unrealistic models, excessive mathematization, and overconfidence in its theoretical claims. First, I show that these issues are interconnected and should be jointly analyzed. Next, I investigate these lines of critique from the perspective provided by the latest achievements in the philosophy of economics (e.g., studies on the epistemic role of economic models). Taking this perspective reinforces some allegations against economics (e.g., these voices accusing economists of treating economic laws as universal laws of nature) and makes some criticisms more nuanced (e.g., the issue of unrealistic assumptions). I conclude by stating that such a methodological perspective is necessary in critically apprising the recent critique of economics.

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to show that metaphors play an important role in the making of economics. Design/methodology/approach – The paper’s discussion is situated within the framework of methodology of economics. It refers to recent studies on the role of metaphors in economics, as well as to the rhetoric – realism controversy (e.g. D. McCloskey versus U. Mäki). Findings – The principal results of the paper are: the demonstration of the importance of metaphors in economics; and the claim that metaphors are not only used for rhetorical purposes but also serve as research tools indispensable in explaining economic phenomena. They are also essential in economic modeling. Research limitations/implications – The claim that economic models function as networks of metaphors needs further in-depth study, in particular drawing on insights from cognitive linguistics, where we find many interesting research projects currently underway, would be desirable. Originality/value – The article contributes to the rhetoric – realism debate in economics. It adds some arguments to the literature claiming that rhetoric can be compatible with realism.

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we offer a methodological reflection on how the explanatory virtues of economic theories can be assessed in a systematic way. Second, we use that theoretical apparatus to study the explanatory virtues of Transaction Cost Economics (TCE, henceforth). Precisely, we are primarily interested in assessing the progress within TCE with respect to its explanatory power rather than directly comparing TCE’s explanatory virtues to alternative theories. The paper offers also some general insights into the way we compare economic theories.

The emergence of transaction cost economics in the early 1970s with Oliver Williamson's successful reconciliation of the so-called neoclassical approach with Herbert Simon's organizational theory can be considered an important part of the first cognitive turn in economics. The development of TCE until the late 1980s was particularly marked by treating the firm as an avoider of negative frictions, i.e., of transaction costs. However, since the 1990s TCE has been enriched by various approaches stressing the role of the firm in creating positive value, e.g., the literature on modularity. Hence, a second cognitive turn has taken place: the firm is no longer only seen as an avoider of negative costs but also as a creator of positive knowledge.

This book offers a vision of economics in which there is no place for universal laws of nature, and even for laws of a more probabilistic character. The author avoids interpreting the practice of economics as something that leads to the formulation of universal laws or laws of nature. Instead, chapters in the book follow the method of contemporary philosophy of science: rather than formulating suggestions for practicing scientists of how they should do research, the text describes and interprets the very practice of scientific research. This approach demonstrates how economists can explain economic phenomena not by subsuming them under general laws, but rather by building models of these phenomena, by referring to causes, or even by investigating what is in the nature of given factors, events, or circumstances to produce.