Austrian and Mainstream Economics on Mathematics - a Comment on Pieniążek (2018): Reply to Machaj (2019)

• Autorzy: Piotr Pieniążek
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Just as I characterized most of the ASE critiques of mathematization of economics as non-essential, Machaj in his fifth and concluding section uses the same description to characterize my critique of the usefulness of the ASE. Perhaps it really is non-essential. Never claiming it to be of an opposite character, I agree with the statement in the sense that it was not my intention to show that every ASE claim is wrong or that every possible ASE study fails to render any illuminating insight. What I did, instead, was to provide arguments that ME, with its superior methods palette, is much better than praxeology, the verbal method of the ASE, both at producing internally consistent theoretical insights in economics as well as at performing empirically meaningful quantitative analysis. In principle, it is possible that praxeology can develop theories that will be much more coherent and detailed in their analysis, much wider in their scope of application, providing more insights into phenomena under inspection, more accurate empirically, etc. - in sum, displaying higher scientific merit than ME theories, but in practice it is not observed, which is, as I claim, due to the very reason of the existence of the crucial difference in the ways the two breeds of economics are being practiced: the (non-) use of math. As a result, the ASE is not nearly as useful as ME in the task of doing economics, hence in its current form it cannot be considered a serious alternative to the modern ME paradigm. (fragment of text)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Economic views; Austrian School; Economic theory; Economic methodology

PL

Poglądy ekonomiczne; Austriacka szkoła ekonomii; Teoria ekonomii; Metodologia ekonomii

• Czasopismo: Ekonomista
• Rocznik: 2021
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 440--448

Twórcy

autor

Piotr Pieniążek

• European University Institute, Florence, Italy

Bibliografia

• Acemoglu D. (2009), Introduction to Modern Economic Growth, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
• Acemoglu D., Autor D. (2010), Skills, Tasks and Technologies: Implications for Employment and Earnings, in: Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 4B, O. Ashenfelter and D. Card (eds.).
• Colander D. (2000), The Death ofNeoclassical Economics, "Journal of the History of Economic Thought", no. 22(2).
• Gali J. (2015), Monetary Policy, Inflation, and the Business Cycle: An Introduction to the New Keynesian Framework and Its Applications, 2nd edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
• Galor O. (2011), Unified Growth Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
• Huerta de Soto J. (2009 [1998]), Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, 2nd ed., Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL.
• Long R.T. (2006), Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Mises versus Friedman, "The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics", no. 9(3).
• Lucas R.E. Jr. (1988), On the Mechanics of Economic Development, "Journal of Monetary Economics", no. 22.
• Machaj M. (2019), Austrian and Mainstream Economics on Mathematics - a Comment on Pieniążek (2018), "Ekonomista", no. 2.
• McCloskey D. (2010), Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• McCloskey D. (2017), Writing the 'Bourgeois Era' Trilogy: A Reply to Eric Jones, "Economic Affairs", no. 37(2).
• Pieniążek P. (2018), Austrian and Mainstream Economics: How Do They Differ?, "Ekonomista", no. 2.
• Rothbard M.N. (2009 [1962]), Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market: Government and the Economy, 2nd ed., Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, AL.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.52335/dvqigjykff20