Rigor in Economics means Pluralism

The two books under review could not be more different in terms of their main subject matter and writing style, but their central message is exactly the same: only a pluralist economics is scientifically rigorous and explanatorily honest and fruitful. Both books underpin this important point in their own ways. While Fullbrook draws on a wide range of history of thought in economics, philosophy and the sciences, his epistemological argument is relatively easy to grasp and full of catch phrases. Marchionatti and Cedrini on the other hand review the century long methodological dispute between economists and economic anthropologists. Their treatment of these debates is very detailed. So, it can be a bit of a struggle at times to follow the intricacies of the defensive arguments used by anthropologists in their battles against imperial attacks by economists. However, by providing an outline of the basic arguments at the start and a concluding summary at the end of most of their chapters the authors make these debates very comprehensive while offering a very thorough historical comparative overview of economic imperialism and the defences of its anthropological opponents. In critiquing its philosophical foundation, Fullbrook argues convincingly that the mainstream narrative in economics is ideologically biased and conceptually too narrow to investigate economic behaviour based on social bonds, inter-subjectivity and real freedom. To allow for such analysis, he concludes, we will need to move towards true pluralism of methods in economics.