Abstract

As reiterated for a long, mainstream economics mainly relies upon a set of unrealistic axioms and deductive assumptions, which, nevertheless, are what underpins its core postulates. They are unnecessarily unrealistic assumptions, mainly because the empirical evidence for contrasting them is as overwhelming as old. Even the claim for (returning to) realism in economics is already old within part of the profession. However, most mainstream academics tend to consider that their research works have in fact empirical contents insofar as they usually start by considering simplified cases, situations, or descriptions that allude to some real economic facet; this, in the way of specificities to be introduced into the standard General Equilibrium model. This seeming paradox is discussed in this paper, and as a result, it is argued that there do is a predominance of a research programme in mainstream orthodox economics (modern neoclassical “economic theory,” plus “econometrics”) that is mainly characterized, more than by micro-empirical precisions, by a sort of abstract micro empiricism. It is also argued that the outcomes brought about by such a “mode of research production” (contributions) do not appear significantly relevant in terms of the quantum of knowledge provided about the functioning and problems of our economies.

摘要

正如长期以来重申的那样，主流经济学主要依赖于一组不切实际的公理和演绎假设，然而，它们是其核心假设的基础。它们是不必要的不​​切实际的假设，主要是因为对比它们的经验证据和旧的一样压倒性。甚至主张（回归）现实主义in economics 已经是老牌专业的一部分了。然而，大多数主流学者倾向于认为他们的研究工作实际上具有实证内容，因为他们通常从考虑暗示某些真实经济方面的简化案例、情况或描述开始；以将特殊性引入标准一般均衡模型的方式。本文讨论了这个看似矛盾的现象，因此，它认为主流正统经济学（现代新古典主义“经济理论”加上“计量经济学”）的研究计划确实占主导地位，其主要特征是，更多而不是通过微观经验的精确性，通过一种抽象的微观经验主义. 还有人认为，这种“研究生产模式”（贡献）带来的结果与所提供的关于我们经济的运作和问题的知识量似乎没有显着相关性。