IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-01619020.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Pourquoi l'histoire de la pensée économique est-elle différente des autres histoires ?
[Почему История Экономической Мысли Отличается От Других Историй?]

Author

Listed:
  • André Lapidus

    (PHARE - Philosophie, Histoire et Analyse des Représentations Économiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Abstract

et A. Lapidus (éds), Экономическая теория в историческом развитии [La théorie économique dans une perspective historique], Moscou : Infra-M, 2016, pp. 6-30.4. Nous entretenons avec l'histoire de notre discipline des relations peu communes : nous avons cette double particularité d'assurer nous-mêmes, comme économistes, l'histoire de la pensée économique, et de maintenir un lien étroit entre cette investigation historique et la recherche théorique en économie. Bien sûr, en biologie, en physique ou en mathématiques, la recherche historique est féconde. Mais elle intéresse en priorité des historiens des sciences ou des épistémologues, plus rarement des spécialistes de la discipline concernée. Au moins à partir du XX e siècle, la division du travail semble s'être imposée dans les sciences de la nature. Rien de tel en économie. Prolongeant une tradition intellectuelle qu'illustrèrent, au XIX e siècle, Jean-Baptiste Say [1826], Auguste Blanqui [1837] ou Friedrich Engels [1843], de nombreux auteurs depuis le début du XX e siècle (Charles Gide et Charles Rist [1909], Joseph Schumpeter [1954] ou Takashi Negishi [1989]) témoignent de l'implication persistante d'économistes majeurs, qui les conduit à entreprendre non seulement des histoires thématiques ou chronologiquement restreintes, mais aussi des histoires générales de la science économique. Et ce qui, pour un regard extérieur, paraîtra le plus saisissant, est cette ambition de se saisir d'enjeux théoriques qui dépassent la seule investigation historique : une ambition qui se retrouve, de façon récurrente, depuis au moins trois décennies dans les discussions parfois contradictoires conduites par les historiens de la pensée économique eux-mêmes 1. C'est là, aussi, que se tient la principale différence qui oppose l'histoire de la pensée économique et, par exemple, l'histoire de la pensée physique ou mathématique. Dans les sciences de la nature, la contribution positive à l'élaboration de la théorie semble, aujourd'hui, largement déconnectée de la réflexion historique. Ainsi, lorsqu'A. Einstein publie, avec L.

Suggested Citation

  • André Lapidus, 2016. "Pourquoi l'histoire de la pensée économique est-elle différente des autres histoires ? [Почему История Экономической Мысли Отличается От Других Историй?]," Post-Print hal-01619020, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-01619020
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://paris1.hal.science/hal-01619020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://paris1.hal.science/hal-01619020/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heinz Kurz, 2006. "Whither the history of economic thought? Going nowhere rather slowly?," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 463-488.
    2. Piero Sraffa & L. Einaudi, 1930. "An Alleged Correction of Ricardo," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 44(3), pages 539-545.
    3. Morishima, Michio, 1974. "Marx in the Light of Modern Economic Theory," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 611-632, July.
    4. Harcourt,G. C., 2022. "Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781009158152, January.
    5. Loomes, Graham & Sugden, Robert, 1982. "Regret Theory: An Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(368), pages 805-824, December.
    6. Mark Blaug, 1991. "The Historiography of Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 632.
    7. Kurz,Heinz D. & Salvadori,Neri, 1997. "Theory of Production," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521588676, January.
    8. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    9. Luigi Einaudi, 1929. "James Pennington or James Mill: An Early Correction of Ricardo," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 44(1), pages 164-171.
    10. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    11. Gerard Debreu, 1991. "Random Walk and Life Philosophy," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 35(2), pages 3-7, October.
    12. repec:bla:econom:v:42:y:1975:i:166:p:182-87 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Yuichi Shionoya, 2009. "The history of economics as economics?," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 575-597.
    14. Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 145-164, Winter.
    15. Mark Blaug, 2001. "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists: Response," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 222-222, Fall.
    16. Filippo Cesarano, 1983. "On the role of the history of economic analysis," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 63-82, Spring.
    17. repec:bla:econom:v:40:y:1973:i:159:p:260-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. J. M. Lipkis, 1993. "Historians and the History of Economic Thought: A Response to Lawrence Birken," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 85-113, Spring.
    19. Martin Bronfenbrenner, 1971. "The “Structure of Revolutions” in Economic Thought," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 136-151, Spring.
    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. André Lapidus, 2019. "Bringing them alive," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1084-1106, November.
    2. André Lapidus, 1996. "Introduction à une "Histoire de la Pensée Economique" qui ne verra jamais le jour," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 47(4), pages 867-892.
    3. George Wu, 1999. "Anxiety and Decision Making with Delayed Resolution of Uncertainty," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 159-199, April.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    5. Ivan Moscati, 2022. "Behavioral and heuristic models are as-if models too — and that’s ok," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 22177, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    6. Raquel M. Gaspar & Paulo M. Silva, 2023. "Investors’ perspective on portfolio insurance," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 22(1), pages 49-79, January.
    7. Oben K Bayrak & Bengt Kriström, 2016. "Is there a valuation gap? The case of interval valuations," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 36(1), pages 218-236.
    8. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    9. Aluma Dembo & Shachar Kariv & Matthew Polisson & John Quah, 2021. "Ever since Allais," IFS Working Papers W21/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    10. Serge Blondel & Louis Lévy-garboua, 2011. "Can non-expected utility theories explain the paradox of not voting?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 3158-3168.
    11. Ivan Barreda-Tarrazona & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutierrez & Daniel Navarro-Martinez & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2014. "The role of forgone opportunities in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 167-188, October.
    12. Rick Harbaugh, 2005. "Prospect Theory or Skill Signaling?," Working Papers 2005-06, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    13. Jasman Tuyon & Zamri Ahmada, 2016. "Behavioural finance perspectives on Malaysian stock market efficiency," Borsa Istanbul Review, Research and Business Development Department, Borsa Istanbul, vol. 16(1), pages 43-61, March.
    14. Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Zpochybnění deskriptivnosti teorie očekávaného užitku [Doubts about the descriptive validity of the expected utility theory]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2007(1), pages 106-120.
    15. Wang, Di, 2021. "Attention-driven probability weighting," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    16. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2015. "Fanning-Out or Fanning-In? Continuous or Discontinuous? Estimating Indifference Curves Inside the Marschak-Machina Triangle using Certainty Equivalents," MPRA Paper 63965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Egil Matsen & Bjarne Strøm, 2006. "Joker: Choice in a simple game with large stakes," Working Paper Series 8307, Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
    18. Astrid Hopfensitz & Frans Winden, 2008. "Dynamic Choice, Independence and Emotions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 249-300, March.
    19. Henrik Andersson & Nicolas Treich, 2011. "The Value of a Statistical Life," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 17, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1324-1369 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Trabelsi, Mohamed Ali, 2006. "Les nouveaux modèles de décision dans le risque et l’incertain : quel apport ? [The new models of decision under risk or uncertainty : What approach?]," MPRA Paper 25442, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-01619020. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.