Politická ekonomie 2012, 60(4):536-550 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.861

Ekonomie vědy - naděje, nebo léčka?

Marek Loužek
Filosofická fakulta UK a VŠE v Praze.

Economics of Science - A Hope or a Pitfall?

The paper poses the question whether the economics of science could be the key to economic methodology. First, the sociology of science, which tries to put science in social context, is described. Then, the economic approach to science, inspired by Tullock, Stigler and Becker, is explained. We point out the problem of circle, according to which putting science in context does not imply relativism as concerns the truth. This conclusion underlines the Popperian message of the paper.

Keywords: methodology of economics, economics of science, sociology of science
JEL classification: A11, A14, I21

Published: August 1, 2012  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Loužek, M. (2012). Economics of Science - A Hope or a Pitfall? Politická ekonomie60(4), 536-550. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.861
Download citation

References

  1. ARROW, K. 1962. The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. Review of Economic Studies, 1962, Vol. 29, pp. 155-173. Go to original source...
  2. BECKER, G. 1993. Human Capital. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. Chicago - London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993. Go to original source...
  3. BLUME, S. B. 1974. Toward a Political Sociology of Science: New York - London: Macmillan, 1974.
  4. BOLAND, L. A. 1971. Methodology as an Exercise in Economic Analysis. Philosophy of Science, 1971, Vol. 38, pp. 105-117. Go to original source...
  5. BOUDON, R. 2011. Bída relativismu. Praha: SLON, 2011.
  6. BROCK, W. A.; DURLAUF, S. N. 1999. A Formal Model of Theory Choice in Science. Economic Theory, 1999, Vol. 14, pp. 113-130. Go to original source...
  7. BUNGE, M. 1991, 1992. A Critical Examination of the New Sociology of Science I, II. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1991, Vol. 21, pp. 524-560 + Vol. 22 (1992), pp. 46-76. Go to original source...
  8. COATS, A. W. 1984. The Sociology of Knowledge and the History of Economics. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 1984, Vol. 2, pp. 211-234.
  9. COLE, S. 1992. Making Science. Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992.
  10. DASGUPTA, P.; DAVID, P. 1994. Toward a New Economics of Science. Research Policy, 1994, Vol. 23, pp. 487-521. Go to original source...
  11. DIAMOND, A. M. 2005. Measurement, Incentives and Constraints in Stigler's Economics of Science: European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2005, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 635-661. Go to original source...
  12. HANDS, D. W. 1994. The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Some Thoughts on the Possibilities. In BACKHOUSE, R. (ed.). New Directions in Economic Methodology. London - New York: Routledge, 1994, pp. 75-108.
  13. HANDS, D. W. 1985. Karl Popper and Economic Methodology. A New Look. Economics and Philosophy, 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 83-99. Go to original source...
  14. LATOUR, B.; WOOLGAR, S. 1986. Laboratory Life. The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Go to original source...
  15. LOUŽEK, M. 2009. Metodologie ekonomie. Praha: Karolinum, 2009.
  16. MÄKI, U. 1992. Social conditioning in economics. In MARCHI, N. (ed.). Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics. Recovering Practice. Boston: Kluwer, 1992, pp. 65-104. Go to original source...
  17. MERTON, R. 1973. The Sociology of Science. London: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
  18. PEIRCE, C. S. 1967. Note on the Theory of the Economy of Research. Operations Research, 1967, Vol. 15, pp. 642-48. Go to original source...
  19. PICKERING, A. 1984. Constructing Quarks. A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
  20. POLANYI, M. 1962. The Republic of Science. Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva, 1962, Vol. 1, pp. 54-74. Go to original source...
  21. POPPER, K. R. 1997. Logika vědeckého bádání. Praha: Oikoymenh, 1997.
  22. RADNITZKY, G. 1986. Towards an "Economic" Theory of Methodology. Methodology and Science, 1986, Vol. 19, pp. 124-147.
  23. RADNITZKY, G. 1987. The "Economic" Approach to the Philosophy of Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1987, Vol. 38, pp. 159-179. Go to original source...
  24. ROSENBERG, A. 1985. Methodology, Theory and the Philosophy of Science. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 1985, Vol. 66, pp. 377-393. Go to original source...
  25. ROSENBERG, A. 1988. Economics is Too Important to be Left to the Rhetoricians. Economics and Philosophy, 1988, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 129-149. Go to original source...
  26. STEPHAN, P. E. 1996. The Economics of Science. Journal of Economic Literature, 1996, Vol. 34, pp. 1199-1235.
  27. STIGLER, G.; BLANK, D. M. 1957. The Demand and Supply of Scientific Personnel. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1957.
  28. STIGLER, G. 1994. Pohyb a pokrok v ekonomii. In JONÁŠ, J. (ed.). Oslava ekonomie. Přednášky laureátů Nobelovy ceny za ekonomii. Praha: Academia, 1994, pp. 475-488.
  29. TOLLISON, R. D. 1986. Economists as the Subject of Economic Theory. Southern Economic Journal, 1986, Vol. 52, pp. 909-922. Go to original source...
  30. TULLOCK, G. 1966. The Organization of Inquiry. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1966.
  31. WALSTADT, A. 2002. Science as a Market Process. Independent Review, 2002, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 5-45.
  32. WEBER, M. 1998. Věda jako povolání. In WEBER, M. Metodologie, sociologie a politika. Praha: Oikoymenh, 1998, pp. 109-134.
  33. WIBLE, J. R. 1998. Economics of Science. Methodology and Epistemology as if Economics Really Mattered. London: Routledge, 1998. Go to original source...
  34. WIBLE, J. R. 1991. Maximization, Replication and the Economic Rationality of Positive Economic Science. Review of Political Economy, 1991, Vol. 3, pp. 164-186. Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.