IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v41y2017i5p1391-1418..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contrast explanation in economics: its context, meaning, and potential

Author

Listed:
  • Jamie Morgan
  • Heikki Patomäki

Abstract

In this article we place Tony Lawson’s account of contrast explanation in context. Lawson’s development of it is given meaning both by the roots of the approach in his work on social ontology and the state of economics that provides the grounds for the critique contained in that social ontology. This is important because such an approach to explanation is not new. Most notably, van Fraassen and Garfinkel have developed it in particular ways and for particular purposes within the philosophy of science and social theory. Setting out the different ways in which the contrastive approach has been developed is useful for identifying what is different about Lawson’s approach, its potential and limits. Lawson’s proposal is more modest and focusses on causal investigation in a manner that flows from his approach to social ontology. Contrast explanation provides a substitute for controlled experiments and facilitates identifying social mechanisms. It also enables exploration of the manifold presuppositions of our explanatory questions. We argue that this is a useful and important contribution to overcoming some of the many problems economics faces.

Suggested Citation

  • Jamie Morgan & Heikki Patomäki, 2017. "Contrast explanation in economics: its context, meaning, and potential," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(5), pages 1391-1418.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:41:y:2017:i:5:p:1391-1418.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bex033
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jamie Morgan, 2019. "A Realist Alternative to Randomised Control Trials: A Bridge Not a Barrier?," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(2), pages 180-188, April.
    2. Phil Faulkner & Stephen Pratten & Jochen Runde, 2017. "Cambridge Social Ontology: Clarification, Development and Deployment," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(5), pages 1265-1277.
    3. María Caamaño-Alegre & José Caamaño-Alegre, 2019. "Economic experiments versus physical science experiments: an ontology-based approach," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 1-30, May.
    4. Huynh, Toan Luu Duc & Nasir, Muhammad Ali & Nguyen, Sang Phu & Duong, Duy, 2020. "An assessment of contagion risks in the banking system using non-parametric and Copula approaches," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 105-116.
    5. Nasir, Muhammad Ali & Duc Huynh, Toan Luu & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2020. "Exchange rate pass-through & management of inflation expectations in a small open inflation targeting economy," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 178-188.

    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:oup:cambje:v:41:y:2017:i:5:p:1391-1418.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.