Politická ekonomie 2010, 58(5):596-607 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.749

Problémy obecné metodologie věd ovlivňují neuspokojivý stav ekonomické vědy

Jaroslav Daňhel, Eva Ducháčková
VŠE v Praze.

How Common Methodology Problems Affect the Unsatisfactory Status of Economic Science

The authors of the article point out that the theory of economics has failed to yield a solid theoretical background in such critical situations as the period of the current fi nancial and economic crisis and the transformation period of post-communist economies. Mainly present crisis opens the question of unsatisfactory status of economic science. While classical liberal or Keynesian concepts are failing, theorists cannot look to mathematical modelling for help. It seems that traditional concepts are malfunctioning. Financial market is particularly predisposed for this process. The use of mathematical model is overvalued. The article calls attention on asymmetry of information problem and possible influence and adequacy of regulatory attitudes on return to equilibrium level, particularly in EU. The challenge for today's theoretical economists is to find a new concept for today's global era.

Keywords: general methodology of science, paradigm of economic science, determinism of stage of the word, decision making of economic subjects, malfunction of mathematical models, regulatory on financial market
JEL classification: D74, D81, D82, G22

Published: October 1, 2010  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Daňhel, J., & Ducháčková, E. (2010). How Common Methodology Problems Affect the Unsatisfactory Status of Economic Science. Politická ekonomie58(5), 596-607. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.749
Download citation

References

  1. AROW, J. K. 1971. Společenský výběr a individuální hodnoty. Praha: Svoboda, 1971.
  2. CASSIDY, J. 2009. How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009.
  3. DVOŘÁK, P. 2008. Veřejné finance, fiskální nerovnováha a finanční krize. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2008.
  4. FRIEDMAN. M. 1992. Svoboda volby. Praha: Liberální institut, 1992.
  5. HAYEK, F. A. 1995. Kontrarevoluce vědy. Praha: Liberální institut, 1995.
  6. KOVANDA, L. 2009. Příběh dokonalé bouře. Praha: Mediacop s. r. o., 2009.
  7. KRUGMAN, P. 2009. How Did Economists Get It So Wrong? New York Times, 2. 9. 2009.
  8. LUCE, R. D.; RAIFFA, H. 1957. Games and Decisions. New York: John Wiley, 1957.
  9. MINI, P. V. 1974. Philosophy and Economics: The Origins of Development of Economic Theory. Gainesville: The University of Florida Press, 1974.
  10. MINSKY, H. P. 2008. Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New York: MacGrawHill, 2008.
  11. MLČOCH, M. 2006. Ekonomie důvěry a společného dobra. Praha: Karolinum, 2006.
  12. ROSS, S. A. 1973. The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principals Problem. The American Economic Revue. 1973, Vol. 63, No. 4.
  13. SAMUELSON, P. A.; NORDHAUS, W. D. 1991. Ekonomie. Praha: Svoboda, 1991.
  14. SEDLÁČEK, T. 2009. Ekonomie dobra a zla. Praha: Nakladatelství 65. pole, 2009.
  15. SINN, H. W. 1989. Economic Decision under Uncertainty. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag, 1989. Go to original source...
  16. STIGLITZ, J. 2001. Asymetrie informací a moci. Ekonom. 2001, č. 50.
  17. STIGLITZ, J. 2003. Jiná cesta k trhu. Praha: Prostor, 2003. Go to original source...
  18. TALEB, N. N. 2007. The Black Swan. New York: Random House, 2007.
  19. TENZER, O. a kol. 1972. Úvod do myšlení pro ekonomy. Praha: Svoboda, 1972.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.