- Paperback: 448 pages
- Publisher: Routledge; 1 edition (23 Aug 2001)
- Language English
- ISBN-10: 0415257174
- ISBN-13: 978-0415257176
- Product Dimensions: 23.1 x 15.5 x 2.5 cm
- Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 572,703 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- See Complete Table of Contents
How Economics Forgot History
and over 900,000 other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Visit the Amazon.co.uk Trade-In Store for more details. |
Product details |
More About the Author
Product Description
Review
'Hodgson's erudition is deeply impressive. Overall he must know more than anyone in the world about the roots of historical and institutional economics. In this volume the importance of thinking about institutions comes across very clearly, as does the contribution of the old institutional economics to this endeavour. This is an important book, which clears the ground for a new, constructive approach to economics that can contribute to a deeper understanding of the world in which we live.' - Professor Paul Omerod, Volterra Ltd., UK; 'In this outstanding, thought-provoking and lucidly written book, Geoffrey M. Hodgson explores the important relationship between economic theory and history, challenging the universalistic doctrine of neoclassical economics. He succeeds impressively...The book provides effective guidance for economists who are prepared to rethink theory formation in a novel way.' - rofessor Kurt Dopfer, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland; 'This is a splendid piece of intellectual history. Hodgson breathes new life into past ideas and the issues surrounding them. These revived ideas are terribly important for the current generation of economists, both mainstream and heterodox. It is the first book I have seen that gets the complex story of historismus into a proper intellectual context.' - Professor Paul Dale Bush, California State University at Fresno, USA; 'This is an impressive study relating the German historical school to institutional and modern economic theory. It shows that Frank Hahn was wrong: the insights of history have not been absorbed; economists need to know the history of ideas and the history of the economy.' - Professor David Colander, Middlebury College, Vermont, USA
Product Description
In arguably his most important book to date, Hodgson calls into question the tendency of economic method to try and explain all economic phenomena by using the same catch-all theories and dealing in universal truths. He argues that you need different theories to analyze different economic phenomena and systems and that historical context must be taken into account.
Hodgson argues that the German Historical School was key in laying the foundations for the work of the pioneer institutional economists, who themselves are gaining currency today; and that the growing interest in this school of thought is contributing to a more complete understanding of socio-economic theory.
Hodgson argues that the German Historical School was key in laying the foundations for the work of the pioneer institutional economists, who themselves are gaining currency today; and that the growing interest in this school of thought is contributing to a more complete understanding of socio-economic theory.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
First Sentence
History is important, partly because every complex organism, every human being and every society carries the baggage of its past. Read the first page
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
History is important, partly because every complex organism, every human being and every society carries the baggage of its past. Read the first page
Explore More
Concordance
Browse Sample PagesConcordance
Front Cover | Copyright | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Cover
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
Customer Reviews
|
There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon U.K.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
3.7 out of 5 stars (3 customer reviews)
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Excellent Treatment of Historical Ideas in Economics, 24 Jan 2005
By Jon B. Thomas - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science (Economics as Social Theory) (Hardcover)
This is a very good historical overview of economic thinkers of the 19th and 20th century. The author appears to believe that modern neoclassical economics has veered into a hopeless cul-de-sac of elaborate mathematical formulations. The underlying theory concerning human behavior in the "market" is a vast over-simplification--without reference to historical specificity and human institutions. The traditional underlying philosophical assumptions of neo-classicist thought about "economic man" appear to be extraordinarily naive.
The author, however, is not calling for the total overthrow of all neoclassical thought. Rather, its integration into a fuller, more realistic, and accurate accounting of what is involved in "economics"--defined as human provisioning activities. He also wants a more scientifically based economics to more carefully consider the legacy of German historicism and American "old" institutionalism. And to integrate those historical insights into a more effective body of economic thought. He would also glean that which is valuable from the work of Karl Marx as well.
The author is not a purely empiricist economic historian that has no use for theory of any sort. Far from it. He elaborates in a very systemic fashion precisely what is necessary to compose a logically coherent system of economic thought. No truly meaningful economic work can really be done without reference to overlying theory--in the author's view. He also makes the point that any meaningful systemic thought about the human condition has to make reference to some metaphysical assumptions. It's impossible--in his eyes--to create a system of thought that stands entirely on its own deductive logic. Ultimately, all writers make appeals to their readers' own experiences or beliefs. I thought his powers of reasoning were quite impressive and saw no evidence of fallacious reasoning in his arguments.
I was introduced to the works of Thorstein Veblen as a young college student over 30 years ago. It's nice to see some restoration of his reputation. Veblen made the wealthy of his era--and their toadys--very uncomfortable with his iconoclasm. He was, however, a brilliant American original and is--even with the shortcomings the author points out--extremely worthy of resurrecting.
Hodgson's breadth of learning is quite impressive. I would wholeheartedly recommend buying the book except for the price. Hopefully, it will deflate to a more reasonable level.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Explaining power of history in the classicals, 3 May 2010
By Moises V. Balestro - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science (Economics as Social Theory) (Paperback)
Reminding the role of history and its explaining power is paramount to face up to the challenge of reinvigorating social sciences. This book by Geoffrey Hodgson accomplishes a two-fold task. One is bringing back the wealth of history and its explaining power to understand institutions. Another is revealing us the enormous potential from classical authors to understand contemporary capitalism. The author shows a brilliant erudition which encourage us to go further ahead in the reading of creative, insightful, but often forgotten classicals. The book is very helpful for those, like me, who are interested in economics as a social science, beyond reductionist approaches.
9 of 36 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Another example of the Antinomian Fallacy, 21 July 2004
By Michael Emmett Brady "mandmbrady" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical Specificity in Social Science (Economics as Social Theory) (Paperback)
Hodgson(H)bases his entire argument on a version of the Antinomian fallacy(see D H Fischer's Historian's Fallacies,1970,Harper and Row,pp.94-97).This fallacy infects all of H's work on the interface between macroeconomics and institutions.Briefly,the antinomian fallacy argues that all events in history are unique.All inductive generalizations are false.It is impossible to learn from experience.Thus,no general theories are possible in the social sciences or liberal arts since institutions are constantly evolving over time during each specific historical period.H's version of the antinomian fallacy is that all periods of history are unique(specific).Period replaces event.This type of fallacious argument is endemic among "Cambridge Keynesians"(Joan Robinson,G L S Shackle,Tony Lawson,Geoffrey Hodgson,Victoria Chick,etc.)and American Post Keynesians(P. Davidson,D.Vickers,etc.).H incorrectly claims that Keynes's correct analysis showing that,due to technological change,advance and innovation over time,the study of the determinates of fixed investment in long lived ,physical ,durable capital goods is not homogeneous over time means that"...Keynes is inconsistent since this implies that economic theory must be related to historically specific material."(Hodgson,p.223)This simply does not follow,which explains why Keynes correctly ignored the historicists and institutionalists when it came time to write his General Theory in 1936.This is because the problem of investing in costly, fixed ,industry specific capital(factories,plant and equipment,etc.),which is irreversible and irrevocable once it is in place,has been a major decision problem since the dawn of history.The threat of technological obsolescence to the presently existing stock of capital by future innovations has occurred in the past and present and will occur in the future.Of course,there will be similarities and dissimilarities in different periods of history.Keynes has a general theory that explains why the private capital stock in every period of history will be suboptimal.It is suboptimal because investment is suboptimal in the private sector due to the uncertainty,ambiguity(D. Ellsberg's term)or lack of evidential weight(Keynes's term)of a sufficient amount of information upon which to plan such projects over a multiperiod future.This insufficiency then leads to involuntary unemployment.Of course,all this is far beyond the intellectual grasp of H.A similar conclusion applies to V.Chick,who H approvingly cites:"Chick's argument underlines the fact that the General Theory was not,in truth,a general theory(since) it applied to a historically specific set of capitalistic institutions".(p.224).Chick's fallacious statement is a very good example of the antinomian fallacy .
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
- Books > Business, Finance & Law > Biographies & Histories > Business & Economic History
- Books > Business, Finance & Law > Economics > Theory & Philosophy
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Academic Philosophy
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Academic Sociology
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Government & Politics
- Books > Society, Politics & Philosophy > Social Sciences > Sociology
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
