Processos de escolha de teorias e formação de um cânon na ciência econômica

Autores

  • Rafael Galvão de Almeida Doutor em economia pelo CEDEPLAR/UFMG

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8085.2020.e66533

Palavras-chave:

metodologia, escolha de teorias, economia mainstream, economia ortodoxa, economia heterodoxa

Resumo

Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar os processos de escolhas de teorias, isto é, o que faz com que uma teoria seja incorporada ao mainstream da disciplina. Tal processo é importante, porque sinaliza a direção dos recursos utilizados em pesquisa. Embora a visão tradicional pressuponha um modelo competitivo, este artigo argumenta que existem falhas de mercado, além de outras disputas, que prejudicam o funcionamento normal da descoberta científica.

Referências

ALMEIDA, R. G.; FERNÁNDEZ, R. G. Hayek versus Polanyi: espontaneidade e desígnio no capitalismo. Econômica, v. 17, p. 89-111, 2015.

AKERLOF, G. A.; MICHAILLAT, P. Persistence of false paradigms in low-power sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, v. 115, n. 52, p. 13228-13233, 2018.

ARIDA, P. A história do pensamento econômico como teoria e retórica, 1984. In: GALA, P.; REGO, J. M. (Eds.). A história do pensamento econômico como teoria e retórica. São Paulo: Editora 34, p. 13-44, 2003.

AZOULAY, P.; FONS-ROSEN, C.; GRAFF ZIVIN, J. S. Does science advance one funeral at a time? American Economic Review, v. 109, n. 8, p. 2889-2920, 2019.

BIELIŃSKI, J.; TOMCZYŃSKA, A. The ethos of science in contemporary Poland. Minerva, v. 57, n. 2, p. 151-173, 2019.

BORDIEU, P. O campo científico. 1976. In: ORTIZ, R. (Org.). Bourdieu – Sociologia. São Paulo: Ática, p. 122-155, 1983.

BOWLAND, L. A. The foundations of economic method: a Popperian perspective. 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2003. [1982].

BROCK, W. A.; DURLAUF, S. N. A formal model of theory choice in science. Economic Theory, v. 14, p. 113-130, 1999.

COLANDER, D.; HOLT, R. P. F.; ROSSER, JR, J. B. The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy, v. 16, n. 4, p. 485-499, 2004.

COLANDER, D.; MCGOLDRICK, K. (Ed.). Educating economists: the Teagle discussion on re-evaluating the undergraduate economics major. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

CRUZ BRANDÃO, M. P. M. Cânon. In: BORTOLLETO FILHO, F. Dicionário Brasileiro de Teologia. São Paulo: ASTE, 2009, p. 124-126.

DEQUECH, D. Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, v. 30, n. 2, p. 279-302, 2007.

FERNÁNDEZ, R. G.; SUPRINYAK, C. E. Manufacturing pluralism in Brazilian economics. Journal of Economic Issues, v. 53, n. 3, p. 748-773, 2019.

FISHER, I. The purchasing power of money. London: Macmillian, 1912.

FRAGA, É. Debate entre heterodoxia e ortodoxia só existe no Brasil, diz economista. Folha de São Paulo. 2016. Disponível em: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2016/07/1788520-debate-entre-heterodoxia-e-ortodoxia-so-existe-no-brasil-diz-economista.shtml. Acesso: 21 Ago. 2019.

GORDIN, M. D. The pseudoscience wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the birth of modern fringe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.

GUIMARÃES, B. Qualis as a measure stick for research output in economics. Brazilian Review of Econometrics, v. 31, n. 1, p. 3-18, 2011.

GUIZZO, D. Why does the history of economic thought neglect Post-Keynesian economics? Review of Keynesian Economics, v. 8, n. 1, p. 119-137, 2020.

GUTHRIE, W. The roles of intellectual pedigrees in economic science. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, v. 46, n. 1, p. 49-60, 1987.

HAYEK, F. A. The use of knowledge in society, 1945. In: HAYEK, F. A. Individualism and economic order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980, p. 77-90.

LAWSON, T. What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics, v. 37, n. 5, p. 947-983, 2013.

LEE, F. A history of heterodox economics: challenging the mainstream in the twentieth century. London: Routledge, 2009.

LOUŽEK, M. The economic approach to science. Prague Economic Papers, v. 25, n. 4, p. 494-506, 2016.

KAPELLER, L.; DOBUSCH, J. Heterodox United vs. Mainstream City? Sketching a framework for interested pluralism in economics. Journal of Economic Issues, v. 46, n. 4, p. 1035-1058, 2012.

KUHN, T. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970 [1962].

MACKIE, C. D. Canonizing economic theory: how theories and ideas are selected in economics. London: M. E. Sharpe, 1998.

MEARMAN, A.; BERGER, S.; GUIZZO, D. What is heterodox economics? Conversations with leading economists. London: Routledge, 2019.

MENEZES, L. M. B. R. O problema de demarcação na filosofia de Karl Popper. Ágora Filosófica, v. 1, n. 2, p. 102-110, 2018.

MIDGLEY, M. Evolution as religion: strange hopes and stranger fears. London: Routledge, 1985.

OLIVEIRA, R. “Desenvolvimento econômico no Brasil: UNICAMP, UFRJ, Marx, Neoliberalismo, Furtado, Burguesia Nacional, Desindustrialização. Desenvolvimento econômico no mundo: AER, QJE, Econometrica, NBER, Educação, Saúde, Pobreza, Desigualdade, Causalidade, Econometria, Data Science.” 7 Ago. 2019, 16:38pm. Twitter. Disponível em: https://twitter.com/rodrigo_ecoufba/status/1159247364382744576. Acesso: 21 Ago. 2019.

PERLMUTTER, D. D. Academic job hunts from hell: inappropriate, hostile and awkward moments. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 6 dez. 2015. Disponível em: http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Job-Hunts-From-Hell-/234459. Acesso: 24 Abr. 2019.

POLANYI, M. Planning and spontaneous order. The Manchester School, v. 16, n. 3, p. 237-268, 1948.

POLANYI, M. The Republic of Science: its political and economic theory. Minerva, v. 1, p. 54-74, 1962.

POLANYI, M. The tacit dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.

QUIGGIN, J. Zombie economics: how dead ideas still walk among us. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.

SCHUMPETER, J. A. History of economic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1954.

SHAPIRO, F. R. Quote…misquote. The New York Times Magazine, 21 de julho, 2008. Disponível em: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/magazine/27wwwl-guestsafire-t.html. Acesso: 20 Mai. 2020.

SHEPERD, G. B. (Ed.). Rejected: leading economists ponder the publication process. Sun Lakes: Thomas Horton, 1995.

STIGLER, G. J. The process and progress of economics. Nobel Memorial Lecture, 8 December, 1982. Nobelprize.org. Disponível em: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/stigler-lecture.pdf. Acesso: 12 Mai. 2020.

TARASCIO, V. J.; CALDWELL, B. Theory choice in economics: philosophy and practice. Journal of Economic Literature, v. 13, n. 4, p. 983-1006, 1979.

WADE HANDS, D. Orthodox and heterodox economics in recent economic methodology. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, v. 8, n. 1, p. 61-81, 2015.

WATERMAN, A. M. C. The evolution of “orthodoxy” in economics: from Adam Smith to Paul Samuelson. Independent Review, v. 24, n. 3, p. 325-345, 2020.

WIBLE, J. R. The economics of science: methodology and epistemology as if economics really mattered. London: Routledge, 1998.

YALCINTAS, A. The problem of epistemic cost: why do economists not change their minds (about the Coase theorem)? American Journal of Economics and Sociology, v. 72, n. 5, p. 1131-1157, 2013.

ZAMORA BONILLA, J. P. Economists: truth-seekers or rent-seekers? In: MÄKI, U. (ed.). Fact and fiction in economics: models realism and social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, p. 356-375.

Downloads

Publicado

2020-12-14

Edição

Seção

Artigos