A economia como objeto socialmente construído nas análises regulacionista e da Economia Social de Mercado

M. Bruno, Ricardo Caffe
{"title":"A economia como objeto socialmente construído nas análises regulacionista e da Economia Social de Mercado","authors":"M. Bruno, Ricardo Caffe","doi":"10.1590/0101-31572016V37N01A02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the ontological arguments in favor of a methodological approach that recognizes the specific characteristics of economic phenomena, compared with those found in inorganic and organic systems. Their epistemological position is anti-positivist and anti-neoclassical because it rejects the attempt to analyses the socio-economic system by analogy with the physical and biological systems. In fact, this is a methodologic mistake, which occurs since the birth of Economic Science with the Physiocracy. These physicalist and organicist views contributes to weaken the heuristic, explanatory and predictive ability of the economic theories. To explore this issue, the present paper starting with a comparative analysis of the Regulation Theory and the Social Market Economy, theoretical currents where the concept of the institution and the historicity inherent in the production and distribution relationships are considered central. Unlike the objects of Physics and Biology, whose regularities and processes were not originally created by the human praxis, the economic object is socially and politically constructed and must have therefore specific theoretical and methodological status. Consequently, the relevance of the theories in the face of the observed economic regularities cannot be achieved by an axiomatic approach that makes the economy an essentially logical-deductive science and ahistorical by construction, nor the assumption of the existence of invariant general laws, purely economic and inescapable.","PeriodicalId":274789,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Economia Política","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Economia Política","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572016V37N01A02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses the ontological arguments in favor of a methodological approach that recognizes the specific characteristics of economic phenomena, compared with those found in inorganic and organic systems. Their epistemological position is anti-positivist and anti-neoclassical because it rejects the attempt to analyses the socio-economic system by analogy with the physical and biological systems. In fact, this is a methodologic mistake, which occurs since the birth of Economic Science with the Physiocracy. These physicalist and organicist views contributes to weaken the heuristic, explanatory and predictive ability of the economic theories. To explore this issue, the present paper starting with a comparative analysis of the Regulation Theory and the Social Market Economy, theoretical currents where the concept of the institution and the historicity inherent in the production and distribution relationships are considered central. Unlike the objects of Physics and Biology, whose regularities and processes were not originally created by the human praxis, the economic object is socially and politically constructed and must have therefore specific theoretical and methodological status. Consequently, the relevance of the theories in the face of the observed economic regularities cannot be achieved by an axiomatic approach that makes the economy an essentially logical-deductive science and ahistorical by construction, nor the assumption of the existence of invariant general laws, purely economic and inescapable.
本文讨论了本体论的论点,赞成一种方法论方法,这种方法认识到经济现象的具体特征,与无机和有机系统中的特征相比较。他们的认识论立场是反实证主义和反新古典主义的,因为它拒绝通过类比物理和生物系统来分析社会经济系统的尝试。事实上,这是一种方法论上的错误,这种错误自重农主义经济学诞生以来就一直存在。这些物理主义和有机主义的观点削弱了经济理论的启发式、解释性和预测性。为了探讨这个问题,本文首先对管制理论和社会市场经济进行比较分析,其中制度概念和生产和分配关系中固有的历史性被认为是核心的理论潮流。与物理学和生物学的对象不同,它们的规则和过程最初不是由人类实践创造的,经济对象是社会和政治建构的,因此必须具有特定的理论和方法地位。因此,面对观察到的经济规律,理论的相关性不能通过一种公理化的方法来实现,这种方法使经济本质上是一种逻辑演绎的科学,并且通过构建而非历史,也不能假设存在不变的一般规律,纯粹是经济的和不可避免的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信