Frank Hahn's powerful critiques of current economic methodology and innovative reconstructions of economic theorizing have long challenged the views of practising economists. This is the first book-length study of Hahn's methodological writings, and is essential reading for any scholar with an interest in the philosophy of economics.

Series Information:
Routledge INEM Advances in Economic Methodology

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in the philosophy of economics, with an array of different methodological stances trying to establish the primacy of their intellectual positions. Two of these in particular have undermined the hegemony once enjoyed by the positivist philosophies of Khun and Popper. The first is represented by "rhetoric" as expounded in the works of McCloskey, Klamer and others. Attacking what they see as imperiously prescriptive methodologies emanating from the philosophy of science, they have sought to widen the economic conversation, frequently by introducing work from other disciplines. In contrast, the realists, including Lawson and Maki, take issue with the relativizing tendencies of the rhetoric school and argue that scientific realism is the most compelling framework for economics. This text provides an introduction to both of these postions, but also shows why neither is a satisfactory resolution of the methodological issues facing economics. In direct opposition to these positions, the authors construct and develop an alternative framework, which they call "causal holism".

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in the philosophy of economics, with an array of different methodological stances trying to establish the primacy of their intellectual positions. Two of these in particular have undermined the hegemony once enjoyed by the positivist philosophies of Khun and Popper. The first is represented by "rhetoric" as expounded in the works of McCloskey, Klamer and others. Attacking what they see as imperiously prescriptive methodologies emanating from the philosophy of science, they have sought to widen the economic conversation, frequently by introducing work from other disciplines. In contrast, the realists, including Lawson and Maki, take issue with the relativizing tendencies of the rhetoric school and argue that scientific realism is the most compelling framework for economics. This text provides an introduction to both of these postions, but also shows why neither is a satisfactory resolution of the methodological issues facing economics. In direct opposition to these positions, the authors construct and develop an alternative framework, which they call "causal holism".

This new book, under the impressive editorship of Thomas Boylan and Paschal O'Gorman, explores a number of major themes central to the work of Karl Popper.

The tensions that have resulted from Popperian thought are well documented. How can mainstream orthodox economics be falsifiable while privileging its core of rationality as unquestionable? This book includes expert contributions from thinkers such as Tony Lawson, K. Vela Velupillai and John McCall, who discuss this issue with renewed academic rigour.

Hahn on Methodology: The Quest for Understanding addresses two fundamental questions: (i) what is distinctive about economic theorising?; (ii) what is the cognitive value of the outcome of this activity of economic theorising, i.e. economic theory. We will argue that for Hahn, economic theorising is distinctive with respect to four dimensions. Firstly, the aim of economic theory is neither to describe nor explain the real economic world, as in the physical sciences. Rather the aim is to achieve objective, but non-scientific, understanding. Secondly, the central question for economic theory remains for Hahn how to understand, but not to predict as in physics for instance, how decentralised choices interact and perhaps get co-ordinated. Thirdly, Hahn identifies three commitments without which, he argues, economic theorising for him is not possible. Finally, economic theorising has a distinctive approach, which Hahn calls its grammar of argumentation ."