Diversity for the Common Good?: Philosophical Inquiries into Pluralism in Economics

Teemu Lari

Diversity for the Common Good? Philosophical Inquiries into Pluralism in Economics

Julkaisun otsikon käännös: Monimuotoisuutta yhteisen hyvän vuoksi?: Filosofisia tutkimuksia pluralismista taloustieteessä

Teemu Lari

Tutkimustuotos: Opinnäyte › Väitöskirja › Artikkelikokoelma

Abstrakti

Tämä väitöskirja arvioi kriittisesti näkemyksiä, joiden mukaan taloustiedettä olisi uudistettava nykyistä monimuotoisemmaksi menetelmällisten ja teoreettisten lähestymistapojen osalta. Tällaisia näkemyksiä kutsutaan usein taloustieteelliseksi pluralismiksi. Pluralistien mukaan taloustieteen nykyinen valtavirta tulisi nähdä vain yhtenä tutkimuksellisena lähestymistapana muiden joukossa ja valtavirrasta poikkeavien lähestymistapojen kehittämistä pitäisi tukea. Tässä väitöskirjassa pluralismia koskevia kysymyksiä tarkastellaan teoreettisesti ja käsitteellisesti tieteenfilosofian näkökulmasta ottaen huomioon aiheeseen liittyvää empiiristä tutkimusta esimerkiksi tieteensosiologian alalta. Väitöskirja koostuu neljästä vertaisarvioidusta artikkelista sekä johdantoesseestä. Artikkeleista kolme keskittyy hyötyihin, joita taloustieteen moninaistamisesta on ajateltu seuraavan. Näitä ovat uusien tutkimussuuntien avautuminen sekä tuotetun tiedon luotettavuuden ja kattavuuden parantuminen. Neljäs artikkeli tarkastelee hyötyjen kääntöpuolta eli erilaisia kustannuksia, joita hyötyjen saavuttaminen voi edellyttää tai joita voi syntyä hyötyjen tavoittelun sivutuotteena. Tutkimuksessa saatiin selville, että kaikkiin tarkasteltuihin pluralismia puoltaviin argumentteihin sisältyy heikkouksia. Näistä tärkein on, että pluralismia puoltavat argumentit tyypillisesti tekevät julkilausumattomia oletuksia taloustieteen tiedollisista päämääristä. Taloustieteen menetelmällisellä ja teoreettisella monipuolistumisella olisi varmasti seurauksia sille, millaista tietoa taloustiede tuottaa, mutta se, ovatko nämä seuraukset toivottavia, riippuu siitä, millaisia tiedollisia päämääriä taloustieteellä nähdään olevan. Tästä ei ole kuitenkaan yksimielisyyttä – ei ole kiistämätöntä ja yksiselitteistä ”yhteistä hyvää”, jota monipuolisuus voisi edistää. Siksi pluralismista käytävä hedelmällinen keskustelu edellyttäisi avointa keskustelua taloustieteen tiedollisista tavoitteista. Tämä tutkimus antaa käsitteellisiä välineitä tällaisen keskustelun käymiseksi. Kuitenkin suurimmat ongelmat liittyvät vain näkemyksiin, joiden mukaan taloustiede kaipaa perinpohjaista uudistusta – maltillinen tutkimuksen moninaisuuden tukeminen saattaa hyvinkin olla taloustieteelle eduksi. Kyse on hyötyjen ja kustannusten punninnasta. Mitä maltillisemmista uudistuksista puhutaan, sitä todennäköisemmin moninaisuuden hyödyt ylittävät kustannukset.

Julkaisun otsikon käännös	Monimuotoisuutta yhteisen hyvän vuoksi?: Filosofisia tutkimuksia pluralismista taloustieteessä
Alkuperäiskieli	englanti
Myöntävä instituutio	Helsingin yliopisto
Valvoja/neuvonantaja	Mäki, Uskali, Valvoja Marchionni, Caterina, Valvoja Amadae, S. M., Valvoja
Myöntöpäivämäärä	27 marrask. 2024
Julkaisupaikka	Helsinki
Kustantaja	University of Helsinki
Painoksen ISBN	978-952-84-0212-1
Sähköinen ISBN	978-952-84-0211-4
Tila	Julkaistu - lokak. 2024
OKM-julkaisutyyppi	G5 Tohtorinväitöskirja (artikkeli)

Tieteenalat

611 Filosofia

Pääsy asiakirjaan

http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-84-0211-4

1 Päättynyt
1 Aktiivinen

ESSK: Economics as serviceable social knowledge: Philosophical investigations on the policy relevance of economics in post-pandemic society
Mäki, U. (Principal Investigator), Marchionni, C. (Osallistuja), Mireles-Flores, L. (Osallistuja), Aydinonat, N. E. (Osallistuja) & Lari, T. (Osallistuja)
01/09/2021 → 31/08/2025
Projekti: Tutkimusprojekti
Pluralismi taloustieteessä ja sen seuraukset tutkimusperustaiselle talouspolitiikalle
Lari, T. (Osallistuja)
01/01/2019 → 31/03/2024
Projekti: Tutkimusprojekti

Siteeraa tätä

@phdthesis{5b1cc6f70c484df99ea7cc37708642c0,

title = "Diversity for the Common Good?: Philosophical Inquiries into Pluralism in Economics",

abstract = "This dissertation examines the recent demands for diversifying economics, often forwarded under the rubric of pluralism. The dissertation aims at illuminating questions that are foundational to this debate and thereby advancing the resolution of the disagreements. The focus is on the question whether economics should be open to a wide range of methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, schools of thought, or such, in a way that would make the current relatively uniform mainstream approach one approach to economics among others. The question is approached from the perspective of empirically informed philosophy of science. This approach combines the traditional tools of philosophy, such as critical examination of arguments and concepts, with a multifaceted understanding of science achieved by drawing on sociological, historical, and economic research on science. The dissertation consists of four research articles and an introductory essay. Three of these articles examine three respective epistemic benefits that increased diversity of approaches and perspectives may be expected to produce. These benefits are labeled the stimulation of inquiry, the reliability of produced knowledge, and the comprehensiveness of attainable knowledge. Each benefit may be used as a premise in an argument to the effect that economics should be more diverse than it currently is. Of these three articles, two use Helen Longino{\textquoteright}s Critical Contextual Empiricism as the theoretical framework. The fourth article examines the flipside of the benefits, namely the various costs that securing the benefits may require or that may emerge as side-effects of diversity. This study finds that all the examined lines of argumentation for pluralism face challenges. The most pressing challenge is that the arguments for pluralism often presuppose views about the goals of economics without explicitly arguing for them. While plurality may have certain effects for the knowledge produced by economics, whether these effects are desirable depends on what kinds of epistemic outputs one thinks economics should deliver. However, there is no universal agreement on this. There is no uncontested Common Good against which to measure which changes are improvements. Arguments which do not confront this reality are unlikely to gain wide support. Thus this study highlights the urgency of openly discussing the research agenda and overall aims of the discipline. This study also helps articulate the views involved in such a discussion by developing suitable conceptual tools. Nevertheless, the most substantial challenges are only faced by views according to which fundamental reform in economics is needed; it is plausible that economics would benefit from a moderate shift towards openness to non-mainstream approaches and perspectives. At the end, the desirability of a shift towards more intellectual diversity in economics is a matter of costs and benefits. The more modest variations of pluralism one considers, the more likely it is that the benefits outweigh the costs.",

keywords = "611 Philosophy",

author = "Teemu Lari",

year = "2024",

month = oct,

language = "English",

isbn = "978-952-84-0212-1",

series = "Dissertationes Universitatis Helsingiensis",

publisher = "University of Helsinki",

number = "238",

address = "Finland",

school = "University of Helsinki",

}

TY - BOOK

T1 - Diversity for the Common Good?

T2 - Philosophical Inquiries into Pluralism in Economics

AU - Lari, Teemu

PY - 2024/10

Y1 - 2024/10

N2 - This dissertation examines the recent demands for diversifying economics, often forwarded under the rubric of pluralism. The dissertation aims at illuminating questions that are foundational to this debate and thereby advancing the resolution of the disagreements. The focus is on the question whether economics should be open to a wide range of methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, schools of thought, or such, in a way that would make the current relatively uniform mainstream approach one approach to economics among others. The question is approached from the perspective of empirically informed philosophy of science. This approach combines the traditional tools of philosophy, such as critical examination of arguments and concepts, with a multifaceted understanding of science achieved by drawing on sociological, historical, and economic research on science. The dissertation consists of four research articles and an introductory essay. Three of these articles examine three respective epistemic benefits that increased diversity of approaches and perspectives may be expected to produce. These benefits are labeled the stimulation of inquiry, the reliability of produced knowledge, and the comprehensiveness of attainable knowledge. Each benefit may be used as a premise in an argument to the effect that economics should be more diverse than it currently is. Of these three articles, two use Helen Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism as the theoretical framework. The fourth article examines the flipside of the benefits, namely the various costs that securing the benefits may require or that may emerge as side-effects of diversity. This study finds that all the examined lines of argumentation for pluralism face challenges. The most pressing challenge is that the arguments for pluralism often presuppose views about the goals of economics without explicitly arguing for them. While plurality may have certain effects for the knowledge produced by economics, whether these effects are desirable depends on what kinds of epistemic outputs one thinks economics should deliver. However, there is no universal agreement on this. There is no uncontested Common Good against which to measure which changes are improvements. Arguments which do not confront this reality are unlikely to gain wide support. Thus this study highlights the urgency of openly discussing the research agenda and overall aims of the discipline. This study also helps articulate the views involved in such a discussion by developing suitable conceptual tools. Nevertheless, the most substantial challenges are only faced by views according to which fundamental reform in economics is needed; it is plausible that economics would benefit from a moderate shift towards openness to non-mainstream approaches and perspectives. At the end, the desirability of a shift towards more intellectual diversity in economics is a matter of costs and benefits. The more modest variations of pluralism one considers, the more likely it is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

AB - This dissertation examines the recent demands for diversifying economics, often forwarded under the rubric of pluralism. The dissertation aims at illuminating questions that are foundational to this debate and thereby advancing the resolution of the disagreements. The focus is on the question whether economics should be open to a wide range of methodological approaches, theoretical frameworks, schools of thought, or such, in a way that would make the current relatively uniform mainstream approach one approach to economics among others. The question is approached from the perspective of empirically informed philosophy of science. This approach combines the traditional tools of philosophy, such as critical examination of arguments and concepts, with a multifaceted understanding of science achieved by drawing on sociological, historical, and economic research on science. The dissertation consists of four research articles and an introductory essay. Three of these articles examine three respective epistemic benefits that increased diversity of approaches and perspectives may be expected to produce. These benefits are labeled the stimulation of inquiry, the reliability of produced knowledge, and the comprehensiveness of attainable knowledge. Each benefit may be used as a premise in an argument to the effect that economics should be more diverse than it currently is. Of these three articles, two use Helen Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism as the theoretical framework. The fourth article examines the flipside of the benefits, namely the various costs that securing the benefits may require or that may emerge as side-effects of diversity. This study finds that all the examined lines of argumentation for pluralism face challenges. The most pressing challenge is that the arguments for pluralism often presuppose views about the goals of economics without explicitly arguing for them. While plurality may have certain effects for the knowledge produced by economics, whether these effects are desirable depends on what kinds of epistemic outputs one thinks economics should deliver. However, there is no universal agreement on this. There is no uncontested Common Good against which to measure which changes are improvements. Arguments which do not confront this reality are unlikely to gain wide support. Thus this study highlights the urgency of openly discussing the research agenda and overall aims of the discipline. This study also helps articulate the views involved in such a discussion by developing suitable conceptual tools. Nevertheless, the most substantial challenges are only faced by views according to which fundamental reform in economics is needed; it is plausible that economics would benefit from a moderate shift towards openness to non-mainstream approaches and perspectives. At the end, the desirability of a shift towards more intellectual diversity in economics is a matter of costs and benefits. The more modest variations of pluralism one considers, the more likely it is that the benefits outweigh the costs.

KW - 611 Philosophy

M3 - Doctoral Thesis

SN - 978-952-84-0212-1

T3 - Dissertationes Universitatis Helsingiensis

PB - University of Helsinki

CY - Helsinki

ER -

Diversity for the Common Good? Philosophical Inquiries into Pluralism in Economics

Abstrakti

Tieteenalat

Pääsy asiakirjaan

Projektit

ESSK: Economics as serviceable social knowledge: Philosophical investigations on the policy relevance of economics in post-pandemic society

Pluralismi taloustieteessä ja sen seuraukset tutkimusperustaiselle talouspolitiikalle

Siteeraa tätä