What's the principal aim of scientific models and/or theories of the real world? Is it to develop an accurate representation of the real world in terms of its essential elements at both the underlying hidden causal structural level and its observable phenomenal level? Or is to develop a logically coherent picture, on the basis of a set of stringent assumptions, of an ideal world which can then be used as the basis for examining whether real-world examples of it match up with it?
As can be gleaned here, both questions presuppose different starting points: the former starts with the real world itself (hence a realist approach), while the latter starts with the non-real world or an ideal-world (hence a non-realist or idealist approach).
In the context of Shaikh's theoretical commentary, it's clear that he belongs to the realist camp since he begins his modern theory of capitalism with the conception of real competition, whereas modern orthodox neoclassical economics belongs to the non-realist or idealist camp since it starts with a conception of perfect competition instead.
So, it would already seem, on prima facie grounds, that starting with a conception of perfect competition is not going to get us any closer to an accurate, or fairly accurate, representation of a real-world capitalist market economy. So, if it's the stated scientific aim to in fact develop an accurate, or fairly accurate, representation of a real-world capitalist market economy then any school of modern economics should jettison from its theoretical work the notion of perfect competition.
With this said, let's now give some specific philosophical reasons for preferring Shaikh's real competition approach over the perfect competition approach of modern orthodox neoclassical economics.
No comments:
Post a Comment