The fragility of a discipline when a model has monopoly status

David Levy and Sandra Peart ()

The Review of Austrian Economics, 2006, vol. 19, issue 2, 125-136

Abstract: We consider the consequences of a scientific literature with only one model of an important phenomenon. The falsification of the model would mean falsification of the science. Scientists who would prefer not to have their discipline falsified will be tempted to find ad hoc explanations to excuse the failure. To test this hypothesis we propose a study of the economic forecasts of the comparative Soviet and American growth rates in the years before a public choice model of central planning was a viable alternative to the public interest model. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Keywords: Central planning; Economic forecasts; Preferences over estimates; Robust political economy (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (6)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11138-006-7344-5 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:kap:revaec:v:19:y:2006:i:2:p:125-136

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... ce/journal/11138/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s11138-006-7344-5

Access Statistics for this article

The Review of Austrian Economics is currently edited by Peter Boettke and Christopher Coyne

More articles in The Review of Austrian Economics from Springer, Society for the Development of Austrian Economics Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().