¿Qué está mal en la economía contemporánea?Paul Streeten ()
Revista de Economía Institucional, 2007, vol. 9, issue 16, pages 35-62 Abstract: In educating economists, we should sacrifice some of the more technical aspects of economics (which can be learned later), in favour of the compulsory inclusion of philosophy, political science, and economic history. Three reasons for these interdisciplinary studies are given here. In the discussion of the place of mathematics in economics, fuzziness enters when symbols a, b, c are identified with individuals, firms, or farms. The identification of the clear cut symbol with the often ambiguous and fuzzy reality invites lack of precision and blurs the concepts. If the social sciences, including economics, are regarded as a “soft” technology compared with the “hard” technology of the natural sciences, development studies have come to be regarded as the soft underbelly of “economic science”. In development economics, the important question is: what are the springs of development? We must confess that we cannot answer this question, that we do not know what causes successful development. Keywords: contemporary economics; social sciences; development economics (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rei:ecoins:v:9:y:2007:i:16:p:35-62 Access Statistics for this article Revista de Economía Institucional is edited by Alberto Supelano More articles in Revista de Economía Institucional from Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
Swedish Business School at Örebro University.