Reseñando algunos líos de las supuestas «ciencias económicas»

  • John Cajas-Guijarro Universidad Central del Ecuador
  • Kathia Pinzón Venegas Flacso-Ecuador
  • Bryan Pérez Almeida Flacso-Ecuador
Palabras clave: Ciencias económicas, ortodoxia, heterodoxia, racionalidad, límites metodológicos.

Resumen

¿Es la economía una ciencia? Probablemente no todavía. Con el objetivo de defender tal hipótesis, este artículo reseña algunos líos de las «ciencias económicas», como las diferencias entre una ortodoxia «científica» (pero, en realidad, reduccionista), y una heterodoxia «holista» (pero sin una síntesis que supere la negación de una ortodoxia indiferente), que mantienen a la economía dominada por mitos. Asimismo, se revisan algunos problemas de la noción ortodoxa de racionalidad: una concepción suprahumana del individuo que simplifica —en extremo— su representación matemática. Tales problemas dejan un agrio sabor a quien estudia «ciencias económicas» para realmente entender la realidad social.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Citas

Acosta, A. (2015). Las ciencias sociales en el laberinto de la economía. Polis, (41). Recuperado de https://journals.openedition.org/polis/10917
Acosta, A. y Cajas-Guijarro, J. (2018). De las ciencias económicas a la post-economía. Reflexiones sobre el sin-rumbo de la economía. Ecuador Debate, (103), 37-59.
Al-Suwailem, S. (2019). The incompletability of markets. Recuperado de https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/58170971/Market_Incompletability_12.01.2019.pdf?awsaccesskeyid=akiaiwowyygz2y53ul3a&expires=1556050112&signature=hw%2buibtb%2boatfxjfg9pdlkf88ea%3d&response-content-disposition=inline%3b%20filename%3dthe_incompletability_of_markets.pdf
Arestis, P. (1996). Post-Keynesian economics: towards coherence. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20(1), 111-135.
Arrow, K. (1950). A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58(4), 328-346.
Bartlett, R. (1989). Economics and power. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
Berg, N. y Gigerenzer, G. (2010). As-if behavioral economics: Neoclassical economics in disguise? History of Economic Ideas, 18(1), 133-165.
Bornstein, G., Kugler, T. and Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: Are groups more «rational» players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, (40), 599-605.
Bunge, M. (1997). La ciencia. Su método y su filosofía. Recuperado de https://users.dcc.uchile.cl/~cgutierr/cursos/INV/bunge_ciencia.pdf
Cajas-Guijarro, J. (2017). El suprapoder monetario. Rebelion.org. Recuperado de http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=235449
Cajas-Guijarro, J. (2018). Los capos del comercio. Concentración, poder y acuerdos comerciales en el Ecuador: un preludio. Quito, Ecuador: Plataforma por el Derecho a la Salud/Fundación Donum/fos.
Callon, M. y Latour, B. (2011). «¡No calcularás!» o cómo simetrizar el don y el capital. Athenea Digital, 11(1), 171-192.
Carranza, C. (2018). Emergencias epistémicas de Economía Heterodoxa en Latinoamérica. (Tesis de doctorado). Recuperado de repositorio digital de la Flacso https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/bitstream/10469/14017/2/tflacso-2018cvch.pdf
Cohen, A. J. and Harcourt, G. C. (2003, March). Retrospectives: Whatever happened to the Cambridge capital theory controversies? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 199-214.
Colander, D. (2010). Moving beyond the rhetoric of pluralism: Suggestions for an ‘inside-the mainstream’ heterodoxy. En R. Garnett, E. Olsen and M. Starr (Eds.), Economic pluralism (pp. 36-47). London, uk: Routledge.
Coleman, J. S. (1966). The possibility of a social welfare function. American Economic Review, 56(5), 1105-1122.
Crotty, J. R. (1980). Post-keynesian economic theory: An overview and evaluation. American Economic Review, 70(2), 20-25.
Dahis, R. (2018). Is economics a science? well, not yet. Recuperado de https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=3036961
Dequech, D. (2007). Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30(2), 279-302.
Dix-Carneiro, R. and Kovak, B. K. (2017, October). Trade liberalization and regional dynamics. American Economic Review, 107(10), 2908-2946.
Dix-Carneiro, R., Soares, R. and Ulyssea, G. (2018). Economic shocks and crime: Evidence from the Brazilian trade liberalization. American Economic Journal, 10(4), 158-195.
Dutt, A. (2015). Uncertainty, power, institutions, and crisis: implications for economic analysis and the future of capitalism. Review of Keynesian Economics, 3(1), 9-28.
Estey, J. A. (1936). Orthodox economic theory: A defense. Journal of Political Economy, 44(6), 791-802.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, usa: Stanford University Press.
Fey, M., McKelvey, R. D. and Palfrey, T. R. (1996). An experimental study of constant-sum centipede games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25(3), 269-287.
Fontana, G. and Gerrard, B. (2006). The future of post keynesian economics. Banca Nazionale del Lavoro BNL Quarterly Review, 59(236), (s. d.).
Fourcade, M., Ollion, E. and Algan, Y. (2015). The superiority of economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(1), 89-114.
Fratini, S. (2019). On the second stage of the cambridge capital controversy. Journal of Economic Surveys. doi:10.1111/joes.12312
Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. En M. Friedman (ed.), Essays in positive economics (pp. 3-43). Chicago, usa: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M. (1968). The role of monetary policy. American Economic Review, 58(1), 1-17.
Gabaix, X. (2014, 09). A Sparsity-Based Model of Bounded Rationality. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(4), 1661-1710.
Godley, W. and Lavoie, M. (2007). Monetary economics: An integrated approach to credit money, income, production and wealth. London, uk: Palgrave MacMillan.
Gräbner, C., y Strunk, B. (2018). Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons. Documento de trabajo N.º 82, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy Johannes Kepler. Universidad de Linz. Recuperado de https://www.jku.at/fileadmin/gruppen/108/ICAE_Working_Papers/wp82.pdf
Harvey, J. T. (2016). An introduction to post keynesian economics: Involuntary unemployment with perfectly flexible wages and prices. The American Economist, 61(2), 140-156.
Hodgson, G. M. (1992). The reconstruction of economics: Is there still a place for neoclassical theory? Journal of Economic Issues, 26(3), 749-767
Jevons, W. S. (1871). The theory of political economy. London, uk: Macmillan.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341-350.
Kelly, G. (1963). A theory of personality. Oxford, usa: W. W. Norton.
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. London, uk: Palgrave Macmillan.
Knight, F. (1921). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York, usa: Dover Publications.
Lavoie, M. (2014). Post-keynesian economics: New foundations. Cheltenham, uk: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Lawson, T. (2005, 12). The nature of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30(4), 483-505.
Lee, F (2009). A History of Heterodox Economics. Challenging the mainstream in the twentieth century. New York, usa: Routledge.
Lee, F. (2012). Heterodox economics and its critics. Review of Political Economy, 24(2), 337-351.
Lucas, R. E. (1972). Expectations and the neutrality of money. Journal of Economic Theory, 4(2), 103-124.
Luxemburg, R. (1925). The complete works of Rosa Luxemburg. Volume 1: Economic writings 1. London, uk: Verso.
March, J. G. (1962). The business firm as a political coalition. The Journal of Politics, 24(4), 662-678.
Markey-Towler, B. (2018). A formal psychological theory for evolutionary economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(4), 691-725.
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. New York, usa: Cosimo Classics.
Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. and Green, J. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford, usa: Oxford University Press.
McKelvey, R. D. and Palfrey, T. R. (1992). An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica, 60(4), 803-836.
Menger, C. (1871). Principles of economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Mishra, S. (2008, September). Structural changes in economics during the last fifty years. Documento de Trabajo n.º 10534, University Library of Munich. Recuperado de https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/10534.html
Naredo, J. M. (2015). La economía en evolución. Madrid, España: Siglo xxi editores.
Ramos Silva, J. (2000). Mathematics in economics: the competition point of view. Journal of Economic Studies, 27(4/5), 326-337.
Robbins, L. (1932). An essay on the nature and significance of Economic Science. London, uk: Macmillan.
Robinson, J. (1942). Ensayo sobre economía marxista. México df, México: Siglo xxi.
Robinson, J. (1974). History versus equilibrium. En Collected economic papers (vol. 5, 48-58). Cambridge, uk: mit Press.
Robinson, J. (1975). The unimportance of reswitching. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89(1), 32-39.
Romer, D. (2000). Keynesian macroeconomics without the LM curve. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(2), 149-169.
Rosenthal, R. W. (1981). Games of perfect information, predatory pricing and the chain-store paradox. Journal of the Operational Research Society, (25), 92-100.
Samuels, W., Johnson, M. and Perry, W. (2011). Erasing the invisible hand. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
Samuelson, P. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behavior. Economica, 5(1), 61-71.
Samuelson, P. (1950). The problem of integrability in utility theory. Economica, 17(68), 355-385.
Samuelson, P. (1966). A summing up. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(4), 568-583.
Satz, D. and Ferejohn, J. (1994). Rational choice and social theory. Journal of Philosophy, (32), 427-436.
Schoder, C. (2017). A critical review of the rationale approach to the microfoundations of post-keynesian theory. Review of Political Economy, 29(2), 171-189.
Sen, A. (1973). Behavior and the concept of preference. Economica, 40(159), 241-259.
Sen, A. (2008). Rational behavior. En The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (68-76). London, uk: MacMillan.
Sraffa, P. (1960). Production of commodities by means of commodities. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2018). Where modern macroeconomics went wrong. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(1-2), 70-106.
Swedberg, R. (2001). Sociology and Game Theory: Contemporary and Historical Perspectives. Theory and Society, 30(3), 301-335.
Thaler, R. H. (2018, June). From cashews to nudges: The evolution of behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 108(6), 1265-87.
Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4), 373-397.
Vines, D. and Wills, S. (2018). The rebuilding macroeconomic theory project: an analytical assessment. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(1-2), 1-42.
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, usa: Princeton University Press.
Walras, L. (1874). Elements of pure economics. London, uk: Routledge.
Whitely, P. and Seud, P. (1996). Rationality and party activism: Encompassing tests of alternative models of political participation. European Journal of Political Research, (29), 215-234.
Zaleskiewicz, T., Gasiorowska, A., Kesebir, P., Luszczynska, A. and Pyszczynski, T. (2013). Money and the fear of death: The symbolic power of money as an existential anxiety buffer. Journal of Economic Psychology, (36), 55-67.
Zhou, X., Vohs, K. and Baumeister, R. (2009). The symbolic power of money: Reminders of money alters social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science, 20(6), 700-706.
Publicado
2020-01-13
Cómo citar
Cajas-Guijarro, J., Pinzón Venegas, K., & Pérez Almeida, B. (2020). Reseñando algunos líos de las supuestas «ciencias económicas». Revista Economía, 71(113), 75-90. https://doi.org/10.29166/economia.v71i113.2091