In his book on neoclassical economics, the American philosopher of economics Daniel M. Hausman (1992) reports a conversation he once had with a prominent American neoclassical economist, Lee Hansen, about the central influence of Milton Friedman's methodology paper (known colloquially as the 'F 53 paper') on the economics profession at the time of its publication.
Hausman writes: 'Lee Hansen told me that he recalls economists in the 1950s reacting to Friedman's essay with a sense of liberation. They could all get on with the job of exploring and applying their models without bothering with objections to the realism of their assumptions.' (1992: f. 18, 164)
For Hausman, this essay of Friedman's allowed these neoclassical economists to reject any criticisms of their 'unrealistic' type of economics. That is, it provided them with some methodological reasons (or arguments) for doing so, with the principal one being: the realism, or unrealism, of the underlying assumptions of the economic model or theory don't matter, as long as they make successful predictions on the basis of them. This was a straightforward instrumentalist-predictivist methodological view of how to do the 'science' of economics (see Bruce Caldwell's work for this specific type of characterisation of Friedman's methodological views). It was a methodology that was in line with the hitherto posivitism in the philosophy of science (going from the logical empiricists back to Ernst Mach). However, it was out of step with the emerging scientific realist view in the philosophy of science, as represented by the J.J.C. Smarts of the philosophy world.
So, as suggested by Hausman's anecdote, the crucial element of Friedman's methodological influence on modern orthodox neoclassical economics is that it helped to liberate it from any objections so it could keep on doing what it does as a so-called science.
As Uskaki Maki (2003) points out in the introduction to a book commemorating the 50th anniversary of Friedman's methodological paper, Friedman's methodological influence on the economics profession still persists, as illustrated by, especially, the introductions to the standard textbooks of modern mainstream economics.
As a consequence, it continues to be the dominant school of modern economics. And, it continues to be so on the basis of constructing its models and theories with unrealistic assumptions.
NB. This anecdote of Hausman's is the very pivot on which to grasp how Friedman's methodological paper has influenced the economics profession.
No comments:
Post a Comment