IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/revpoe/v13y2001i2p221-243.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incommensurability of Economic Paradigms: A case study of the monetary theories of Mises and Marx

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Tomass

Abstract

Influenced by postmodern philosophy, economists have held that substantive propositions made by rival schools of economics are parts of 'incommensurable paradigms'. The incommensurability thesis implies that one cannot cross evaluate or adjudicate between substantive propositions made within rival paradigms. This paper provides a framework to examine the tenets of the incommensurability thesis through a comparative case study of the rival monetary theories of Ludwig von Mises and Karl Marx. Section 1 presents the case for the incommensurability of economic paradigms as postmodernists and their predecessors assert. It defines three elements that constitute an economic paradigm— starting points, methodological procedures, and conceptual schemes. Sections 2, 3 and 4 examine whether the three paradigmatic elements in the monetary theories of Mises and Marx are incommensurable. Section 5 concludes by drawing implications for paradigm (in)commensurability.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Tomass, 2001. "Incommensurability of Economic Paradigms: A case study of the monetary theories of Mises and Marx," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 221-243.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:revpoe:v:13:y:2001:i:2:p:221-243
    DOI: 10.1080/09538250120036655
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538250120036655
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09538250120036655?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Burczak, Theodore A., 1994. "The Postmodern Moments of F. A. Hayek'S Economics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 31-58, April.
    2. Mark Blaug, 1990. "Economic Theories, True or False?," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 49, December.
    3. Roland Hoksbergen, 1994. "Postmodernism and Institutionalism: Toward a Resolution of the Debate on Relativism," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 679-713, September.
    4. Andrea Salanti & Ernesto Screpanti (ed.), 1997. "Pluralism in Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 900, December.
    5. McCloskey, Donald N, 1983. "The Rhetoric of Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 481-517, June.
    6. Tomass, Mark, 1998. "On the Relativist Fallacy of the Impossibility of Value Neutral Inquiry in Political Economy," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 279-298, September.
    7. Resnick, Stephen A. & Wolff, Richard D., 1989. "Knowledge and Class," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226710235, June.
    8. Lavoie, Don, 1983. "Some Strengths in Marx's Disequilibrium Theory of Money," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 7(1), pages 55-68, March.
    9. Roger E. Backhouse, 1997. "Truth and Progress in Economic Knowledge," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 766, December.
    10. von Mises, Ludwig, 1957. "Theory and History," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, edition 1, number mises1957.
    11. Doug Brown, 1991. "An Institutionalist Look at Postmodernism," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(4), pages 1089-1104, December.
    12. Warren J. Samuels, 1998. "Comment on “Postmodernism and Institutionalism”," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 823-832, September.
    13. Bruce J. Caldwell, 1984. "Praxeology and its Critics: an Appraisal," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 363-379, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zanotti, Gabriel J. & Cachanosky, Nicolás, 2015. "Implications Of Machlup’S Interpretation Of Mises’S Epistemology," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 37(1), pages 111-138, March.
    2. Joan Trullén, 2010. "Giacomo Becattini and the Marshall's method. A Schumpeterian approach," Institut Metròpoli Working Paper in economics 1003, Institut Metròpoli.
    3. Robert Garnett, 2006. "Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(4), pages 521-546.
    4. Gabriel J. Zanotti & Agustina Borella & Nicolás Cachanosky, 2023. "Hermeneutics and phenomenology in the social sciences: Lessons from the Austrian school of economics case," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 403-415, September.
    5. Jayme Lemke & John Kroencke, 2020. "Methodological confusions and the science wars in economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 87-106, March.
    6. Steven Horwitz, 2011. "Theory, history, and the great recession," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(2), pages 171-184, June.
    7. Godden, David P., 2001. "Elegy, ode, or panegyric? Practising agricultural economics in Australia, 1975-99," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(1), pages 1-33.
    8. Peter Leeson & Peter Boettke, 2006. "Was Mises right?," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 64(2), pages 247-265.
    9. Robert Garnett, 2011. "Why should Austrian economists be pluralists?," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 24(1), pages 29-42, March.
    10. Wilfred Dolfsma, 2001. "Economists as subjects: Toward a psychology of economists," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 77-88, March.
    11. Petrick, Martin, 2004. "Can Econometric Analysis Make (Agricultural) Economics A Hard Science? Critical Remarks And Implications For Economic Methodology," IAMO Discussion Papers 14911, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    12. J. Kornai., 2002. "The System Paradigm," Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP Voprosy Ekonomiki, vol. 4.
    13. Suzuki, Tomo, 2003. "The accounting figuration of business statistics as a foundation for the spread of economic ideas," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 65-95, January.
    14. Calcagno, Peter T. & Hall, Joshua C. & Lawson, Robert A., 2010. "Objectivism versus subjectivism: A market test," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 445-448, November.
    15. Andrew Mearman & Sebastian Berger & Danielle Guizzo, 2016. "Curriculum reform in UK economics: a critique," Working Papers 20161611, Department of Accounting, Economics and Finance, Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol.
    16. Graupe, Silja & Steffestun, Theresa, 2018. ""The market deals out profit and losses": Wie ökonomische Standardlehrbücher das unreflektierte Denken in Metaphern fördern," Working Paper Series Ök-38, Cusanus Hochschule für Gesellschaftsgestaltung, Institut für Ökonomie.
    17. Kurt Dopfer, 2013. "Economics with a Phylogenetic Signature," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2013-06, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    18. Maurice Doyon & Stéphane Bergeron & Lota Tamini, 2017. "Policy relevance of applied economist: Examining sensitivity and inferences," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-12, CIRANO.
    19. Miguel A. Duran, 2007. "Mathematical Needs and Economic Interpretations," Contributions to Political Economy, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-16.
    20. Viktor J. Vanberg, 2023. "Liberalism and democracy: legitimacy and institutional expediency," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 195(3), pages 251-268, June.

    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:taf:revpoe:v:13:y:2001:i:2:p:221-243. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRPE20 .

    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.