Search Results

The chapter summarizes some of the main characteristics of Schumpeter's evolutionism, discussing his own evolution in some detail, since the early days of the Methodenstreit between Menger and Schmoller, and the participation of Schumpeter along the Walrasian side.

Yet he tried to surpass what he recognized as the limits of that side: the analysis of capitalism from the point of view of statics, and consequently the understatement of the dynamic role of innovation, the main endogenous drive for change and adaptation of the economic system.

Schumpeter's non‐Darwinist evolutionism is analysed, and his contributions are compared to his main rival and bête‐noir, J. M. Keynes; in spite of the conflicting views of both men, some essential points of proximity are indicated: both interpreted modern industrial relations as part of a dynamic, nonlinear, complex system, emphasizing the emergence of uncertainty (Keynes) or change (Schumpeter).

Their closely related understanding of the cyclical nature of capitalism is indeed one of the crucial contributions of the first half‐century economics.

Exposes the basic principles of neoclassical theoretical system and then provides an answer to the question: was the marginalist a real revolution? The specific contributions of Jevons, Menger, and Walras are considered in some detail. The reasons for success of the marginalist revolution are finally discussed.

The final chapter is a close examination of Weber's views on historical explanation, historical objectivity and value freedom. The first sections consider Weber's intellectual background, especially the importance of the Methodenstreit between Menger and the historical school of economics. Later sections deal with Weber's views on understanding human actions, ideal types and the limits of naturalism. The final sections examine his views on value freedom and historical objectivity.

The second chapter shows that, in the eyes of ordoliberals, power is the source of an epistemological problem. Eucken tried to acquire a scientific understanding of the driving forces underlying the economic order, what he called the actual economic reality. His ambition rested on a method to escape the given and immediate aspects of the reality, which seemed contaminated by vested interests. Thus, Eucken updated the old German methodological quarrel (Methodenstreit). In order to resolve the great antinomy between theory and history, Eucken suggested articulating these two approaches by means of his theory of orders. Eucken aimed at applying theoretical analysis to the uses and abuses of power in the economy but without falling under the influence of the expression of vested interests.

The chapter elaborates the post-war disciplinary context from which critical international theory emerged. While most accounts start with the so-called ‘third debate’, this chapter situates its emergence in the longer story of the rise in theory’s prestige in the social sciences. It tells the story of a series of disputes over method (Methodenstreit) that paved the way not just for higher levels of theoretical abstraction, and a never vanquished humanist challenge to the scientific outlook. It was during the 1950s that the persona of the theorist was first established in international relations. In the following decades, personae of the international relations theorist evolved through academic institutionalization of certain epistemic practices and technical capabilities modelled on behaviouralist and philosophy-of-science standards. The stage was thus set for a rival, namely, critical intellectual persona to emerge in opposition to both the humanist and scientific outlooks, but in continuity with the ever-higher orders of abstraction.