The Future of Economics
Four Possible Scenarios
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6108944 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lukáš Kovanda (Prague University of Economics and Business, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 59 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 743-758 |
| Publication date | 2011-12-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Politická ekonomie (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0032-3233 • E-ISSN: 2336-8225 |
| Publisher | Prague University of Economics and Business (PUBLISHER • CZ) |
| DOI | 10.18267/j.polek.819 |
| OpenAlex | W2324233386 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 22 |
Already during the financial crisis from 2007 through 2009, a growing number of scholars, laymen or media outlets blamed economics as such, at least partially, for the turmoil and subsequent economic malaise. Therefore, the debate concerning future long-term development of economics - or, more precisely, prevailing economic theory - has been intensifying. The following text outlines four possible scenarios - synthetic, evolutionary, reactionary, and revolutionary - of such a development. Each scenario is connected with a methodologist of economics or a methodologist of science, who represent it, for it is right the domain of methodology or/and philosophy of science wherein it is necessary to look for an ideological background belonging to different research traditions in economics as well as for an understanding of determining stances and worldviews of the traditions' proponents
Applied economics · Classical economics · Economic methodology · Economic science · Economics · Epistemology · Heterodox economics · Ideology · Mainstream economics · Neoclassical economics · Philosophy of science · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Reactionary · Social science · Sociology · Economic theories and models · Economic Theory and Institutions · Economic Theory and Policy · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.23 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2013 - 2021 (9) |
| Highly cited | No |