A critique of the ergodic/nonergodic approach to uncertainty

Rod O’Donell

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2014, vol. 37, issue 2, 187-209

Abstract: Although uncertainty is widely viewed as an essential element of post Keynesianism, two contrasting perspectives on its nature and foundations compete for attention–the ontologically oriented ergodic/nonergodic (ENE) approach, and the epistemologically oriented human abilities and characteristics (HAC) approach. Since little or no direct debate has previously occurred between the two perspectives, this paper presents an extended critique of the ENE approach in both general and Keynes-specific terms. The critique argues, inter alia, that the ENE approach is untenable because it makes it impossible for agents to obtain knowledge of the relevant state of reality; it employs two conflicting definitions of ergodicity; its accounts of agent learning are incoherent or internally inconsistent; it commits the excluded middle fallacy; its view of causality is oversimplified; and its treatment of Keynes’s philosophical work is inaccurate and tendentious. General aspects of the critique also apply to other schools employing the ENE approach.

Date: 2014
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2753/PKE0160-3477370201 (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:mes:postke:v:37:y:2014:i:2:p:187-209

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/MPKE20

DOI: 10.2753/PKE0160-3477370201

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().