 Minsky Moments, Russell Chickens and Grey Swans: The Methodological Puzzles of Financial Instability AnalysisAlessandro Vercelli Chapter 1 in Minsky, Crisis and Development, 2010, pp 15-31 from Palgrave Macmillan Abstract: Abstract Although Minsky’s FIH has been discussed and extended by many scholars since its inception, it is not yet a full-fledged theory as a precise specification of the relationship between some of the crucial variables is still missing or remains largely implicit (a critical survey of much of the literature may be found in Tymoigne, 2006). For that reason Minsky has been often accused of ‘implicit theorising’ (see in particular Tobin, 1989). In this view the theoretical axioms are not clearly spelled out and their implications for explanation and prediction are insufficiently argued (Toporowski, 2005, 2008). For that reason most academic economists dismissed the FIH, although a few high-level practitioners continued to consider it quite relevant for their choices. In our opinion this is a non sequitur. We have to take seriously the criticism of implicit theorising but from it we should draw conclusions quite different from those of many Minsky’s critics. Implicit theorising is typical of new revolutionary theories (in the sense of Kuhn, 1970). Keywords: Business Cycle; Implicit Theorise; Structural Instability; Micro Model; Economic Unit (search for similar items in EconPapers) There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palchp:978-0-230-29232-1_2 Ordering information: This item can be ordered from Access Statistics for this chapter More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan |
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.