Biblio on phil of econ

From Kevin Hoover’s class at Duke University:


Daniel Hausman, “Economic Methodology in a Nutshell,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 3(2), 1989, pp. 115-127.

Daniel Hausman, “Appendix:  An Introduction to Philosophy of Science,” The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 281-329.

Mark Blaug, Marcel Boumans, John Davis, Harro Maas, and Gert Reuten, “A Short Introduction to the Methodology of Economics,” unpublished manuscript, University of Amsterdam.

1. Classical Contributions to Economic Methodology

John Stuart Mill, “On the Definition of Political Economy and the Method of Investigation Proper to It,” in Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy.

John Neville Keynes, The Scope and Method of Political Economy, 4th edition, 1917.

Lionel Robbins, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 1935.

Daniel Hausman, “John Stuart Mill’s Philosophy of Economics,” Philosophy of Science 48(3), 1981, pp. 363-385.

2. Friedman and Positive Economics

Milton Friedman, “The Methodology of Positive Economics,” in Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1953.

Lawrence Boland, “A Critique of Friedman’s Critics,” Journal of Economic Literature 17(2), 1979, pp. 503-522.

Uskali Mäki, “Friedman and Realism,” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, Vol. 10, 1992, pp. 171-195.

Daniel Hausman “Why Look Under the Hood?” in Essays on Philosophy and Economic Methodology.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, ch. 5 (pp. 70-74).

 3. Popper and Falsificationism

Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1959, excerpts.

Karl Popper, “Science:  Conjectures and Refuations,” in Conjectures and Refutations.  London:  Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963, pp. 33-58.

Bruce Caldwell, “Clarifying Popper,” Journal of Economic Literature 29(1), March, pp. 1-33.

D. Wade Hands, “Karl Popper and Economic Methodology,” Economics and Philosophy 1(1), pp. 83-99.

Mark Blaug, “Comment on D. Wade Hands, ‘Karl Popper and Economic Methodology:  A New Look,” Economics and Philosophy 1(2), pp. 286-288.

Mark Blaug “Why I Am Not a Constructivist:  Confessions of an Unrepentant Popperian,” in Roger E. Backhouse, editor, New Directions in Economic Methodology.  London:  Routledge, 1994, ch. 6 (pp. 109-136).

4. Kuhn and Scientific Revolutions

Thomas Kuhn, “The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions,” in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Thomas Kuhn, “The Essential Tension:  Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research,” in Boyd et al., ch. 7.

A.W. Coats, “Is there a ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ in Economics?” Kyklos 22(2), 1969, pp. 289-296.

5. Lakatos and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs

Imré Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs,” in Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 91-197.

E. Roy Weintraub, “Appraising General Equilibrium Analysis,” Economics and Philosophy, vol. 1, no. 1, 1985, pp. 23-37.

Mark Blaug, “Kuhn versus Lakatos or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics,” Spiro Latsis, editor, Method and Appraisal in Economics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 149-180.

D. Wade Hands, “Popper and Lakatos in Economic Methodology,” in Uskali Mäki, Bo Gustafsson, and Christian Knudsen, editors, Rational Institutions and Economic Methodology.  London:  Routledge, 1993, pp. 61-75.

Roger Backhouse, “The Lakatosian Legacy in Economic Methodology,” in Backhouse, editor, New Directions in Economic Methodology.  London:  Routledge, 1994, pp. 173-191.

Roger Backhouse, “The Neo-Walrasian Research Program in Macroeconomics,” in Neil De Marchi and Mark Blaug, editors, Appraising Economic Theories.  Aldershot:  Edward Elgar, 1991, pp. 403-426.

Kevin D. Hoover, “Scientific Research Program or Tribe?  A Joint Appraisal of Lakatos and the New Classical Macroeconomics,” in Neil De Marchi and Mark Blaug, editors, Appraising Economic Theories.  Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991, pp. 364-394.

6. Realism

Uskali Mäki, “Realism” and “Realisticness,” in John Davis, D. Wade Hands, and Mäki, editors, The Handbook of Economic Methodology.  Cheltenham:  Edward Elgar, 1998, pp. 404-413.

Ian Hacking, “Experimentation and Scientific Realism,” in Boyd, ch. 13.

Daniel Hausman, “Problems with Realism about Economics,” Economics and Philosophy 14(2), 1998, pp. 185-213.

Tony Lawson, “What Has Realism Got to Do With It,” Economics and Philosophy 15(2), 1999, pp. 269-282.

Hoover “Is Macroeconomics for Real?”, The Monist 78(3), July 1995, pp. 235-257.

7. Models

Daniel Hausman, “Models and Theories in Economics,” The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1992, ch. 5 (pp. 70-82).

Allan Gibbard and Hal Varian, “Economic Models,” Journal of Philosophy 75(11), 1978, pp. 664-677.

Robert Sugden, “Credible Worlds:  The Status of Theoretical Models in Economics,” Journal of Economic Methodology 7(1), 2000, pp. 1-31.

Mary Morgan, “The Technology of Analytical Models:  Irving Fisher’s Monetary Worlds,” Philosophy of Science 64(supplement), December 1997, pp. S304-S314.

Mary Morgan, “Models, Stories, and the Economic World,” Journal of Economic Methodology 8(3), 2001, pp. 361-384.

Nancy Cartwright, “Fables and Models,” in the Dappled World.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1999, ch. 2 (pp. 35-58). 

 8. Laws in Economics

Carl Hempel, “Laws and Their Role in Natural Explanation,” Philosophy of the Natural Sciences.  Englewood Cliffs, NJ:  Prentice-Hall, 1966.  in Boyd, ch. 16.

Daniel Hausman, “Supply and Demand Explanations and Their Ceterius Paribus Clauses,” Review of Political Economy 2(2), July 1990, pp. 168-187.

Nancy Cartwright, “Ceteris Paribus Laws and the Socio-economic Machine,” in the Dappled World.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1999, ch. 6 (pp. 137-151).

Kevin D. Hoover, “Are There Macroeconomic Laws,” in The Methodology of Empirical Macroeconomics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, ch. 2 (pp. 17-56).

 9. Reductionism and Microfoundations

Alan Garfinkel, “Reductionism,” in Boyd, ch. 24.

John Watkins, “Methodological Individualism and Social Tendencies,” in Boyd, ch. 39.

Maarten Janssen, “Microfoundations,” in John Davis, D. Wade Hands, and Mäki, editors, The Handbook of Economic Methodology.  Cheltenham:  Edward Elgar, 1998, pp. 307-310.

Alan Nelson, “Some Issues Surrounding the Reduction of Macroeconomics to Microeconomics,” Philosophy of Science, Vol. 51, No. 4. (Dec., 1984), pp. 573-594.

Robert E. Lucas, Jr. and Thomas J. Sargent, “After Keynesian Macroeconomics,”

Kevin D. Hoover, “Does Macroeconomics Need Microfoundations?” in The Methodology of Empirical Economics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2001, ch. 3 (57-88).

Alan P. Kirman, “Whom or What Does the Representative Agent Represent?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 6(2), Spring 1992, pp. 117-136.

 10. Causality

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding, 1777, section II-VII. [NB. link is to the whole book; print pp. 4-79 of text which is pp. 1-75 of pdf.]

David Hume, “Of Interest,” in Essays:  Moral, Political, and Literary, 1754.

Kevin D. Hoover, Causality in Macroeconomics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2001, chs. 1 and 2 (pp. 1-59).

Kevin D. Hoover, The Methodology of Empirical Macroeconomics.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2001, ch. 4 (pp. 89-134).

James Woodward, “Causation and Explanation in Econometrics,” in Daniel Little, On the Reliability of Economic Models.  Boston:  Kluwer, 1995, pp. 9-62.

 11. Pragmatism

Charles S. Peirce, “The Fixation of Belief,” Popular Science Monthly 12, November 1877.

Willard V.O. Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” in From a Logical Point of View, New York:  Harper and Row, 1953, ch. 2 (pp. 20-46).

E. Roy Weintraub, “Methodology Doesn’t Matter, But History of Thought Might,”in Seppo Honkapohja, editor, The State of Macroeconomics.  Oxford:  Blackwell, 1990, pp. 263-279.

Mäki “Methodology Might Matter, but Weintraub’s Meta-Methodology Shouldn’t,” Journal of Economic Methodology, 1(2), 1994, pp. 215-231.

Donald McCloskey, How To Do a Rhetorical Analysis, and Why,” in John B. Davis, Recent Developments in Economic Methodology, vol. I.  Cheltenham:  Edward Elgar, 2006, pp. 319-342.

Uskali Mäki, “Diagnosing McCloskey,” in Journal of Economic Literature 33(3), September 1995, pp. 1300-1318.