Economics has become a monolithic science,
variously described as formalistic and autistic with
neoclassical orthodoxy reigning supreme. So argue
Dimitris Milonakis and Ben Fine in this new major work
of critical recollection. The authors show how economics
was once rich, diverse, multidimensional and
pluralistic, and unravel the processes that lead to
orthodoxy’s current predicament. The book details how
political economy became economics through the
desocialisation and the dehistoricisation of the dismal
science, accompanied by the separation of economics from
the other social sciences, especially economic history
and sociology. It is argued that recent attempts from
within economics to address the social and the
historical have failed to acknowledge long standing
debates amongst economists, historians and other social
scientists. This has resulted in an impoverished
historical and social content within mainstream
economics. The book ranges over the shifting role of
the historical and the social in economic theory, the
shifting boundaries between the economic and the
non-economic, all within a methodological context.
Schools of thought and individuals, that have been
neglected or marginalised, are treated in full,
including classical political economy and Marx, the
German and British historical schools, American
institutionalism, Weber and Schumpeter and their
programme of Socialökonomik, and the Austrian school. At
the same time, developments within the mainstream
tradition from marginalism through Marshall and Keynes
to general equilibrium theory are also scrutinised, and
the clashes between the various camps from the famous
Methodenstreit to the fierce debates of the 1930s and
beyond brought to the fore.
The prime
rationale underpinning this account drawn from the past
is to put the case for political economy back on the
agenda. This is done by treating economics as a social
science once again, rather than as a positive science,
as has been the inclination since the time of Jevons and
Walras. It involves transcending the boundaries of the
social sciences, but in a particular way that is in
exactly the opposite direction now being taken by
"economics imperialism". Drawing on the rich traditions
of the past, the reintroduction and full incorporation
of the social and the historical into the main corpus of
political economy will be possible in the
future.
|
|