Fleetwood on causal holism: clarification and critique

Thomas A. Boylan and Paschal F. O'Gorman

Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2006, vol. 30, issue 1, 123-135

Abstract: Fleetwood (2002, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 26, no. 1, 27--45), provided a critical evaluation of causal holism (Boylan and O'Gorman, 1995, Ekonomia, vol. 1, no. 2, 9--21), from the perspective of critical realism. For Fleetwood there are three fundamental areas of disagreement, namely the differential approaches to unobservable entities, description, and explanation. In this paper the authors dispute Fleetwood's analysis of causal holism in all these areas. To contextualise and clarify their disagreements with Fleetwood, the authors examine the most significant differences between the two methodological frameworks. They argue that notwithstanding their shared criticism of mainstream economics, critical realism and causal holism remain methodologically incompatible. Copyright 2006, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bei020 (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:oup:cambje:v:30:y:2006:i:1:p:123-135

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue

More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Cambridge Political Economy Society Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().