Philosophical Framework for Rethinking Theoretical Economics and Philosophy of Economics

This book sets out to encourage a debate about the role that economic theory and philosophy of economics can play. A good part of economics consists of theoretical developments which describe completely imaginary worlds and have no connections to actual market economies. If the purpose of theoretical and philosophical analysis in economics is to make a contribution to find out how modern market economies work and which kind of theoretical practice will be useful for the implementation of successful economic policies, a shift both in philosophy of economics and economics itself is needed. Exposing the ungrounded pretensions of the mainstream philosophy of economics, Marqués' carefully argued book is a major contribution to the ongoing debate on contemporary mainstream economics and its methodological and philosophical underpinnings. Even those who disagree with his conclusions will benefit from his thorough and deep critique of the modeling strategies used in modern economics. Lars Pĺlsson Syll, Malmö University, Sweden Is 'mainstream philosophy of economics' only about models and imaginary worlds created to represent economic theories? Marqués questions this epistemic focus and calls for the ontological examination of real world economic processes. This book is a serious challenge to standard thinking and an alternative program for a pluralist philosophy of economics. John Davis, Marquette University, USA and University of Amsterdam In recent decades economists have focused heavily on the development and use of models. In this scholarly but accessible book Marqués clearly describes the limitations of this approach and suggests alternative directions. It is a valuable addition to the armoury of anyone concerned about the nature of mainstream economics. Stuart Birks, Massey University, New Zealand In this book Gustavo Marqués, one of our discipline's most dexterous and acute minds, calmly investigates in depth economics' most persistent methodological enigmas. Chapter Three alone is sufficient reason for owning this book. Edward Fullbrook, University of the West of England