Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:44:10.530Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The enduring relevance of the model Platonism critique for economics and public policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2012

DARRELL ARNOLD  and
FRANK P. MAIER-RIGAUD
DARRELL ARNOLD
Affiliation:
Faculty of History, Philosophy, and Global Studies, St. Thomas University, Miami Gardens, FL, USA
FRANK P. MAIER-RIGAUD*
Affiliation:
OECD Competition Division, Paris France, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany and Department of Economics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
*
*Email: frank.maier-rigaud@oecd.org, maier-rigaud@microeconomics.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The article briefly introduces Hans Albert and the basic elements of his critique of neoclassical economics as a form of ‘model Platonism’. The two most important elements of his general methodological critique of economics – namely the institutional vacuum inherent in much economic modelling and its unrealistic assumptions about behaviour – are introduced. It is argued that these specific critiques have been taken up with varying degrees of success in areas of economic research such as institutional economics and in behavioural and experimental research programmes. However, the fundamental methodological gist of his critique remains as pertinent to mainstream economics as it was when originally formulated. The influence of ‘model Platonic’ thinking remains pervasive in academia and also in public policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2012 , pp. 289 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Viktor Vanberg and Geoffrey Hodgson for valuable comments on an earlier version.

References

Adorno, T. W., Albert, H., Dahrendorf, R., Habermas, J., Pilot, H., and Popper, K. R. (1969), Der Positivismusstreit in der Deutschen Soziologie, Hamburg: Herman Luchter.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. W., Albert, H., Dahrendorf, R., Habermas, J., Pilot, H., and Popper, K. R. (1976), The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology (translated by Adey, G. and Frisby, D.), New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1959), ‘Der logische Charakter der theoretischen Nationalökonomie – Zur Diskussion um die exakte Wirtschaftstheorie’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 171: 1–13.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1960), ‘Nationalökonomie als Soziologie – Zur sozialwissenschaftlichen Integrationsproblematik’, Kyklos, 13: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, H. (1961), ‘Die Problematik der ökonomischen Perspektive’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 117: 438–467.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1962), ‘Der moderne Methodenstreit und die Grenzen des Methodenpluralismus’, Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaft, 13: 143–169.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1963), ‘Modell-Platonismus. Der neoklassische Stil des ökonomischen Denkens in kritischer Beleuchtung’, in Karrenberg, F. and Albert, H. (eds.), Sozialwissenschaft und Gesellschaftsgestaltung – Festschrift für Gerhard Weisser, Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 45–76.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1968), Traktat über kritische Vernunft, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1978), ‘Nationalökonomie als sozialwissenschaftliches Erkenntnisprogramm’, in Gaugler, E., Goedecke, W., König, H., Wiese, G., and Wildenmann, R. (eds.), Ökonometrische Modelle und sozialwissenschaftliche Erkenntnisprogramme – Beiträge zu einem Symposium anläßlich des 90. Geburtstages von W. G. Waffenschmidt, Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut Wissenschaftsverlag, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1979), ‘Zur Kritik der reinen Ökonomie – die Neoklassik und die Methodenkontroverse’, in Laski, K., Matzner, E., and Nowotny, E. (eds.), Beiträge zur Diskussion und Kritik der neoklassischen Ökonomie – Festschrift für Kurt W. Rothschild und Josef Steindl, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp. 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, H. (1980), ‘Koreferat zu Willi Meyer “Erkenntnistheoretische Orientierungen und der Charakter des ökonomischen Denkens”’, in Streissler, E. and Watrin, C. (eds.), Zur Theorie marktwirtschaftlicher Ordnungen, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 111–120.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1984), ‘Modell-Denken und historische Wirklichkeit’, in Albert, H. (ed.), Ökonomisches Denken und Soziale Ordnung – Festschrift für Erik Boettcher, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 39–62.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1985), Treatise on Critical Reason, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albert, H. (1998), Marktsoziologie und Entscheidungslogik: Zur Kritik der reinen Ökonomik, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (1999), Between Social Science, Religion and Politics: Essays on Critical Rationalism, Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi Bv Editions.Google Scholar
Albert, H. (2012), ‘Model Platonism: Neoclassical Economic Thought in Critical Light’ (translated by Arnold, D. and Maier-Rigaud, F. P.), Journal of Institutional Economics, 8 (3): doi:10.1017/S1744137412000021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, R. H. (1993) [1978]), The Antitrust Paradox, 2nd edn, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. (1964), ‘What Should Economists Do?’, Southern Economic Journal, 30: 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buiter, W. H. (2009), ‘The Unfortunate Uselessness of Most “State of the Art” Academic Monetary Economics’, Financial Times, 3 March 2009.Google Scholar
Colander, D., Föllmer, H., Haas, A., Goldberg, M., Juselius, K., Kirman, A., Lux, T., and Sloth, B. (2008), ‘The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of Academic Economics’, Working Paper no. 1489, 98th Dahlem Workshop on Modeling of Financial Markets, (available at: http://www.ifw-members.ifw-kiel.de/publications/the-financial-crisis-and-the-systemic-failure-of-academic-economics/KWP_1489_ColanderetalFinancial%20Crisis.pdf)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, K. M. (2011), Reality Ignored: How Milton Friedman and Chicago Economics Undermined American Institutions and Endangered the Global Economy, Arlington: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1953), ‘The Methodology of Positive Economics’, in Friedman, M. (ed.), Essays in Positive Economics, Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 3–34.Google Scholar
Krugman, P. (2009), ‘How did Economists get it so Wrong?’, The New York Times, 6 September 2009.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1997), Myth of the Framework, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1963), ‘Problems of Methodology – Discussion’, American Economic Review, 53: 229–231.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J. (2002), ‘There is no Invisible Hand’, The Guardian, 20 December 2002.Google Scholar