 Is Mainstream Economics a Science Bubble?Review of Political Economy, 2017, vol. 29, issue 4, 523-538 Abstract: This article uses George Soros’ theory of boom–bust cycles to argue that mainstream economics, as built on Samuelson’s Foundations, followed a similar boom-bust cycle. It underwent a reflexive, positive feedback pattern of development before 1980 followed by a reflexive, negative feedback pattern of development after 1980, making it a science bubble. The positive feedback pattern was associated with the ‘misconception’ that when economics is framed as a natural science as per Samuelson, it improves its descriptive capacities as a science; the negative feedback pattern was associated with increasing recognition that this was a ‘misconception’ and the emergence of mainstream economics’ performative ambition—the idea that economics aims to construct the world in its own image rather than describe it. The article discusses how this latter aim is embodied in later game theory, ‘new’ behavioral economics and mechanism-design theory. Yet the vision of economics as a performative science is inconsistent with Samuelson’s natural science model of economics. Thus, mainstream economics turns out to be a science bubble much like many other mistaken, superseded research programs in the history of science. Date: 2017 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:29:y:2017:i:4:p:523-538 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from DOI: 10.1080/09538259.2017.1388983 Access Statistics for this article Review of Political Economy is currently edited by Steve Pressman and Louis-Philippe Rochon More articles in Review of Political Economy from Taylor & Francis Journals |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.