IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-04139952.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Marginal Revolution in the light of Foucault's typology of epistemes

Author

Listed:
  • Clémence Thebaut

    (NET - Neuroépidémiologie Tropicale - CHU Limoges - Institut d'Epidémiologie Neurologique et de Neurologie Tropicale - INSERM - Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale - GEIST - Institut Génomique, Environnement, Immunité, Santé, Thérapeutique - UNILIM - Université de Limoges, LEDa - Laboratoire d'Economie de Dauphine - IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement - Université Paris Dauphine-PSL - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres, UNILIM - Université de Limoges)

Abstract

Objective: We seek here to draw on the methods and tools put forward by Michel Foucault in The Order of the Things (1966) to shed light on history of welfare economics. More specifically we consider that the rejection of interpersonal comparisons that foreshadowed the marginalist revolution and the transition to ordinal measures of utility during the 19th century can be explained by the shift from the classical episteme to a modern episteme which is described by Foucault. Method: To explore this hypothesis, we drawn on the method of archaeological knowledge, proposed by Foucault (1966, 1969). We started by building a corpus using an incremental research strategy (the "snowball" method), starting from first bibliographic reference on history of welfare economics Baujard (2013, 2014). Then, we study the various statements within a corpus, in order to identify regularities and turning points both in semantics and concepts, so as to compare discourse "styles". Unlike other approaches in social sciences, the method of knowledge archaeology consists in analysing scientific discourses in themselves, outside the social, economic and political context that led them to emerge. Results: Using this methodology, we first examine to what extent the early utilitarianism is typical of the classical episteme as described by Foucault, which entails (i) the use of a mechanistic framework, (ii) the use of mathematics and more generally (iii) an effort to classify different entities. Second we examined how the rejection of interpersonal comparisons in the marginalist literature and the transition to ordinal utilities could be typical of the modern episteme, through the development of positivist stand and transcendental function of the notion of utility.

Suggested Citation

  • Clémence Thebaut, 2023. "The Marginal Revolution in the light of Foucault's typology of epistemes," Working Papers hal-04139952, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-04139952
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://unilim.hal.science/hal-04139952
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://unilim.hal.science/hal-04139952/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivan Moscati, 2016. "Retrospectives: How Economists Came to Accept Expected Utility Theory: The Case of Samuelson and Savage," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 219-236, Spring.
    2. Lawrence Birken, 1990. "Foucault, Marginalism, and the History of Economic Thought: a Rejoinder to Amariglio," History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 22(3), pages 557-569, 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. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    2. Peter N. Ireland, 2021. "Edward Nelson: Milton Friedman and economic debate in the United States, 1932–1972 (volumes 1 and 2)," Business Economics, Palgrave Macmillan;National Association for Business Economics, vol. 56(2), pages 101-105, April.
    3. Jean Baccelli & Philippe Mongin, 2016. "Choice-based cardinal utility: a tribute to Patrick Suppes," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 268-288, July.
    4. Giandomenica Becchio, 2020. "The Two Blades of Occam's Razor in Economics: Logical and Heuristic," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 9(1), pages 1-17, July.
    5. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.
    6. Han Bleichrodt & Chen Li & Ivan Moscati & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Nash was a first to axiomatize expected utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 309-312, September.
    7. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    8. Sebastian Schweighofer-Kodritsch, 2024. "Bounded Rationality, Beliefs, and Behavior," Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers 0037, Berlin School of Economics.
    9. Alfio Giarlotta & Angelo Petralia, 2024. "Simon’s bounded rationality," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 47(1), pages 327-346, June.
    10. Jean-Sébastien Lenfant, 2018. "Probabilising the consumer: Georgescu-Roegen, Marschak and Quandt on the modelling of the consumer in the 1950s," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 36-72, January.
    11. Zappia, Carlo, 2021. "Leonard Savage, The Ellsberg Paradox, And The Debate On Subjective Probabilities: Evidence From The Archives," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 169-192, June.
    12. Monet, Benjamin & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2022. "Subjective probability and stochastic independence," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    13. Tanko, Mohammed, 2022. "Nexus of risk preference, culture and religion in the adoption of improved rice varieties: Evidence from Northern Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Malte Doehne & Catherine Herfeld, 2023. "How academic opinion leaders shape scientific ideas: an acknowledgment analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2507-2533, April.
    15. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.
    16. Schilirò, Daniele, 2017. "Economics versus psychology.Risk, uncertainty and the expected utility theory," MPRA Paper 83366, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Craig Landry & Dylan Turner, 2020. "Risk Perceptions and Flood Insurance: Insights from Homeowners on the Georgia Coast," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Charles-Cadogan, G., 2018. "Losses loom larger than gains and reference dependent preferences in Bernoulli’s utility function," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 220-237.
    19. Simone Ferrari-Toniolo & Leo Chi U. Seak & Wolfram Schultz, 2022. "Risky choice: Probability weighting explains independence axiom violations in monkeys," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 319-351, December.
    20. Naudé, Wim, 2023. "Artificial Intelligence and the Economics of Decision-Making," IZA Discussion Papers 16000, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    JEL Classification: B12; D61; D63; I10 Welfare economics; Health economic evaluation; Epistemology; Foucault;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B12 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925 - - - Classical (includes Adam Smith)
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    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:wpaper:hal-04139952. 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.