Methodenstreit 2013? Historical Perspective on the Contemporary Debate Over How to Reform Economics
Peter Spiegler () and
Forum for Social Economics, 2013, vol. 42, issue 4, 311-345
The general failure of economists to predict the financial crash of 2008 has given rise to a wide-ranging debate over the need for methodological reform. But has this debate been adequate to the task at hand? We introduce a framework for classifying methodological debates according to their scope. The scope of debate is especially important in a time of economic crisis, when it is unclear what kind of disciplinary reforms are needed. We find that the current debate is confined largely to the methodological level, taking the incumbent ontology and epistemology as given. We contrast the current debate with two other moments of internal questioning in economics--the Methodenstreit of the 1880s and Keynes' innovations of the 1930s. These were more fundamental, ontological debates, and the contrast with the current debate indicates that reform in economics is likely to be minimal and slow in the wake of the crisis.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:fosoec:v:42:y:2013:i:4:p:311-345
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Access Statistics for this article
Forum for Social Economics is currently edited by William Milberg, Dr Wolfram Elsner, Philip O'Hara, Cecilia Winters and Paolo Ramazzotti
More articles in Forum for Social Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().