Why did mainstream economics miss the crisis? The role of epistemological and methodological blinkers
Purpose - In this paper, we show how the translation of a logical positivist epistemology into neoclassical economics has had profound methodological consequences which over-determine an inability to predict cusps and their associated crises. Design/methodology/approach - Based on a review of epistemological and methodological literature, we argue that the financial crises of the past 20 years ought to initiate a questioning of the epistemological foundations of the discipline. Findings - As an alternative, we suggest that an economics methodology informed by critical realism would increase the probability of a timely prediction of crises. Originality/value - It de-emphasises falsification as a key criterion for assessing the quality of knowledge, provides more space for non-quantified reflections on relationships, a thicker model of human agency, a well-specified model of collective human economic behaviour as well as an endogenous possibility of dramatic change within the economic domain.
|Note||Accepted Author Manuscript (paper). The 'EarlyCite" version of the article is available at the publisher's website, at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=17037274|
Siegmann, K.A., & Cameron, J.. (2011). Why did mainstream economics miss the crisis? The role of epistemological and methodological blinkers. On the Horizon, 20(3), 1–9. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/34798