How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science

By Geoffrey M. Hodgson. 2001

597 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cabe2d6109730297430f6f2190ec9d0322c1c2a6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Why We Need a Generalized Darwinism, And Why Generalized Darwinism is Not Enough (2006, background): “Darwinism does not itself provide all the necessary causal mechanisms and explanations for the social scientist, nor obviate the elaborate additional work of specific investigation and detailed causal explanation in the social sphere (Hodgson, 2001).”
Macromarketing as Agorology: Macromarketing Theory and the Study of the Agora (2006, background): “As we know, there have been criticisms of the “unreality” of neoclassical economics for years (cf. Hirsch 1980; Hodgson 2001; Mason 1995), both from within the discipline of economics and from without.1 This leads to the third intellectual distinction.”
The Legal Nature of the Firm and the Myth of the Firm-Market Hybrid (2002, background): “It is likely that this reluctance stems in part from a misguided enthusiasm to frame the analysis of the firm and the market in universal, ahistorical and relatively de-institutionalised terms (Hodgson, 2001).”
What is specific about evolutionary economics? (2008, background): “The controversy begins with Veblen who, in formulating his version of evolutionary economics, took the methodological position of the German Historical School (see Hodgson 2001, Chap.”
Institutional Economics: Then and Now (2001, background): “…and Weber (Nau and Steiner, 2000; Nau, 2000), on the influence of Schmoller on Schumpeter’s earlier work (Ebner, 2000), on the institutional component in Frank Knight’s work (Hodgson, 2001), on the “post-Marshallian” tradition in the evolutionary nature of the firm (Finch, 2000), and much more.”
Much of the ‘economics of property rights’ devalues property and legal rights (2015, background): “11 Similar considerations apply to Holcombe’s response to Hodgson’s (2013b) argument that”
Institutions and Individuals: Interaction and Evolution (2007, unknown): “The possibility of such changes may be admitted, but as yet there is no indication in critical realism of how such changes may be explained.”
Reclaiming habit for institutional economics (2004, background): “The rationality assumptions neither tell us what is particularly human, nor describe human capabilities or limitations in particular details or contexts (Hodgson, 2001), nor show how a rational problem-solver tackles ongoing challenges (Vanberg, 2002).”
Defining the Social Economy and its Governance at the Neighbourhood Level: A Methodological Reflection (2005, background): “Which normative and analytical dimensions should be included in essentialist and holistic definitions of the social economy and its governance?”
The Darwinian Destiny of An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (2003, background): “If social theory can be legitimately described as Lamarckism, in the sense of admitting the possibility of inheritance of acquired characters, then this Lamarckism must be nested within a Darwinian theory (Hodgson, 2001a; Knudsen, 2001).”
Breaking New Paths: Theory and Method in Path Dependence Research (2013, background): “The most famous case may be the German Methodenstreit between the German Historical School and the early proponents of Austrian Economics (see (Hodgson (2001)).”
Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital (2003, background): “See Hodgson (2001) and Chang’s (1997) discussion on ‘The Economics and Politics of Regulation’.”