Content and method: an epistemic perspective on some historical episodes

Brian Loasby

The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2002, vol. 9, issue 1, 72-95

Abstract: The double contrast between allocation and process and between formal proof and empirically based reasoning is selectively applied to the history of economics. Hume's rejection of provable knowledge led to Smith's psychological explanation of science and thence to his theory of growth through the division of labour. Marshall's cautious theorizing and cognitively based evolutionary perspective stimulated contrasting responses from Sraffa and Young. Robinson matched method to content but Chamberlin did not, and Andrews's attempt to develop a process-based price theory met more resistance than Penrose's reinvention of growth theory. We currently observe conflicting methods of handling evolution and business strategy.

Keywords: Knowledge; Analytical Systems; Equilibrium; Process; Evolution (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2002
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09672560110103397 (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:taf:eujhet:v:9:y:2002:i:1:p:72-95

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/REJH20

DOI: 10.1080/09672560110103397

Access Statistics for this article

The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought is currently edited by José Luís Cardoso

More articles in The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().