Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/172301
Authors: 
Galbács, Peter
Year of Publication: 
2017
Series/Report no.: 
CHOPE Working Paper 2017-09
Abstract: 
Mainstream economics has been running the gauntlet of adverse criticism for decades. These critiques claim as a message of central importance that mainstream economics has lost its relevance as for understanding reality. By making a brief comparison between the methodological strategies of the main stream and institutional economics I suggest that the firm demarcation between the streams stems from the difference between their methodologies. Its peculiar interest directed mainstream economics to take a unique methodological path and consequently the adherents have not been able to be on the lookout for certain facets of socio-economic reality. However, the chosen path, the axiomatic-deductive strategy proved to be an appropriate method for identifying economic laws. This claim is justified even by some recent efforts of new institutional economics. In order to support the conversation between the schools I highlight some causes that currently make it impossible to start a rational discourse.
Subjects: 
mainstream economics
institutional economics
methodology of economics
isolation
homo oeconomicus
JEL: 
B13
B15
B41
C12
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
660.32 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.