Metaphor and Dogma in the History of Macroeconomics
Chapter 11: Conclusion
11.1 INTRODUCTION I began this book with an account of what would happen if the microfoundations dogma were to prevail: the death of macroeconomics as a separate discipline and its reduction to a mere branch, or application, of neoclassical microeconomics. Then, in Part I, I drew on the literature on metaphors, and on the philosophy of science, to argue that it was unlikely to succeed, not least because it had already failed both in biology and in the other social sciences. In defence of the relative autonomy of macroeconomic theory I set out the two principles of the fallacy of composition and downward causation. The emergent properties of macroeconomic systems, I suggested, made their reduction to microeconomics impossible. In Part II, I mapped the road to microfoundations in economics since 1936, and a very rocky, uneven and circuitous road it proved to be, though it did get there in the end. In the other social sciences the road had the same name but a quite different destination. Finally, in Part III, I looked at the dissenters who refused to take the road to microfoundations. These were mainly heterodox economists, but there were also some prominent mainstream dissidents and a good (but not unanimous) majority of the economic methodologists. In this ﬁnal chapter I want to consider some of the issues that have arisen, but have not been properly addressed, in Parts I–III. First, in Section 11.2, I ask why the microfoundations dogma emerged when it did, and not before,...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.