IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jhisec/v43y2021i3p350-377_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Economics Is An Evolutionary, Mathematical Science: How Could Veblen’S View Of Economics Have Been So Different Than Peirce’S?

Author

Listed:
  • Wible, James R.

Abstract

More than a century ago, one of the most famous essays ever written in American economics appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics: “Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” There, Thorstein Veblen claimed that economics was too dominated by a mechanistic view to address the problems of economic life. Since the world and the economy had come to be viewed from an evolutionary perspective after Charles Darwin, it was rather straightforward to argue that the increasingly abstract mathematical character of economics was non-evolutionary. However, Veblen had studied with a first-rate intellect, Charles Sanders Peirce, attending his elementary logic class. If Peirce had written about the future of economics in 1898, it would have been very different than Veblen’s essay. Peirce could have written that economics should become an evolutionary mathematical science and that much of classical and neoclassical economics could be interpreted from an evolutionary perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Wible, James R., 2021. "Why Economics Is An Evolutionary, Mathematical Science: How Could Veblen’S View Of Economics Have Been So Different Than Peirce’S?," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 350-377, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jhisec:v:43:y:2021:i:3:p:350-377_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1053837220000450/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jhisec:v:43:y:2021:i:3:p:350-377_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/het .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.