Browsed by
Category: Course Material

Understanding Economic Models (Course)

Understanding Economic Models (Course)

Course code: FILM-353, Understanding Economic Models, 5 cr, University of Helsinki

Syllabus (from 2016 fall–to be revised)

This is a course that will improve your understanding of economics, and broaden your horizon concerning what economists do. We will present you the necessary tools and tricks to tackle very difficult questions concerning the status of economics as a science. The course will cover many exemplary models and their use in theory and policy in order to improve your understanding of economics. We will also have heated debates. Really! After finishing this course, you will be able to defend your discipline better against criticism and skepticism. But also you will be able to criticize it better—just in case you would like to do that. We have one requirement: You should have successfully completed the introduction to economics course. Otherwise, all economics students from all levels are welcome. Students of other social sciences and philosophy who have a basic knowledge of economics are also welcome.



N. Emrah Aydinonat
Researcher at TINT
Michiru Nagatsu
Researcher at TINT



Students of economics sometimes complain about economics and economics education. They say things like the following:

Economics education and textbooks are so far away from the real world that I do not see how they can be useful in any meaningful sense. In fact, we are learning a lot of unrealistic models that have nothing to do with the real world. Real people are not like Homo Economicus; we are not as calculative, as selfish, and as weird as Homo Economicus. No one I know thinks at the margin. And thanks god, no one is maximizing utility. Of course, even if they want to do that, they do not know enough math. Also, you know, economic decision making is much more complex than choosing between apples and bananas. Monetary incentives do not always work. People are not rational, they are emotional. They do crazy things. Markets are not perfect. The invisible hand is an illusion. And do not get me started with the failure of economics before, during and after the 2007-8 crisis…

Students sometimes complain about economics. So what? Why should we care? Well, most importantly, learning economics is not only about memorizing the ten principles of economics and taking derivatives. Understanding economics requires a good understanding of the nature and scope of economic models. Our representative student above is challenged by some very fundamental questions about economics.


Consider the following seemingly simple questions. Can a scientific model which is obviously wrong explain anything? Can it help us understand the real world? If people are mostly irrational creatures when compared with Homo Economicus, can economic models help us understand how people behave? If markets are never perfect, can we trust the invisible hand? Before answering these questions, also consider Nobel Prize winner economist Paul Krugman’s comment on economics and economists. He said “the economics profession went astray because economists, as a group, mistook beauty, clad in impressive-looking mathematics, for truth.” So according to Krugman, economists should not mistake their fancy models with truth. The question is, if this is true, what should they do with these fancy models?


In fact, it is not only our representative student or Krugman who criticizes economics. Heterodox economists and other social scientists also criticize economics for similar reasons. But not only that! Methodological debates concerning economics are abundant in the history of economics. Competing schools of economic thought disagree about the nature and scope of economics, and about the way in which economic research should be conducted. Mainstream economists also disagree about how economics should be. Moreover, now that we have research areas such as behavioral economics, experimental economics, and neuroeconomics (btw, are they different?), there is more disagreement concerning the assumptions that economists make and the models that they use to explain the world.

So, in brief, it is a mess out there! And that is why we have this course. We would like to bring some order to this mess by way of studying economic models with the help of some tools and tricks from philosophy of science. Yes, this is a course in philosophy of economics. But do not worry, we have a practical approach. We will talk about economics all the time and introduce the philosophical tools without you realizing it 🙂


The main aims of the present course are

  1. to provide the student with the tools and abilities that are necessary to discuss and understand debates concerning the status of economics as a science; and
  2. to give a broader view of different schools of economic thought with a special emphasis on new developments in economics.

The course covers fundamental issues in the philosophy and methodology of economics and discusses some of the different schools of thought in economics from a methodological perspective. The mainstream economics (which forms the core of economics education) is at the center of the course and other schools of thought are discussed in relation to this mainstream. Particularly, the course focuses on how alternative schools in economics criticize the mainstream. Defining common assumptions and concepts of mainstream economics (such as rationality, equilibrium, efficient markets) and their criticism will get special attention throughout the course.

If you are still reading this, we assume that you are taking this course. However, if you’d rather not take this wonderfully interesting course, let us give you the answer to all the questions we will ask during the semester. It is 42.


Warning! Philosophy challenges complacency. It is hard to know what the truth is concerning hard questions like the ones we will be addressing this semester.

Dan Hausman’s syllabus for his Philosophy of Economics (Fall 2006) contains the above warning. Same applies to our course.


Participation: The course will be interactive and students are expected to make the required readings  before  coming  to  the  class  and  to  join  the  discussion  throughout  the semester. Do not forget! There is a 10% participation bonus!

Attendance: Attendance is required in the sense that in exams you are responsible from the materials covered in lectures.

Response papers (RPs): At least one reading will be assigned for each class. Based on these readings you are required to write 10 response papers for this course. RPs will be submitted via Moodle before class. In the first week we will explain what a RP is. Briefly, it is a short (e.g., one-page) essay where you evaluate, criticize or amend the required reading. For example, you may consider answering some of the following questions for this task.

  • What question does the paper address? Is it important? Why?
  • What is the hypothesis or theoretical argument?
  • Is the argument convincing? Why or why not?
  • What are the weak and strong parts of the paper?
  • How does the paper relate to the other readings (or to your other courses)?

The response papers are worth 40% of your final grade. You need to send in your response papers on time. If you are late, there will be a penalty. Here is how it works. If you miss the deadline you’ll lose 25 points (out of a 100). If you miss the deadline, we will give you another chance to submit your response paper. If you also miss the second deadline, you will not be able to submit your response paper anymore.


  1. Response papers 40%
  2. Midterm 10%
    Taking the midterm exam is obligatory. If you do not take the midterm you cannot take the final exam.
  3. Final Exam 50%
  4. Participation Bonus: 10% of the final result (1+2+3).

Recommended Reading

 9780393246414_300 Economics Rules
The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science
Dani RodrikW.W. Norton, 2015
ISBN-10: 0393246418
ISBN-13: 978-0393246414

Weekly Plan

1 12.09 Vocational Guidance Counsellor

Why be an economist? Why not a lion tamer? What is wrong with economics education? What do critics say?

2 19.09 NEA The Funniest Joke in the World

Pop-Economics explains the global financial crisis! Well, maybe not! It turns out that pop-econ explains everything including the logic of life but not the crisis. Could a science that cannot answer its core questions explain the logic of life? In answering this question we will have go back to the definitions of economics and discuss economics imperialism.

3 26.09 NEA How to Irritate People Economists I

How? Tell them that their models are unrealistic and they cannot explain anything. How do economists defend their models against this type of criticism? In this part of the course we will discuss the marginalism debate in economics and discuss how economists rationalize their unrealistic assumptions.

4 03.10 NEA How to Build Certain Interesting Things I

For example, how to build a linear city with two sellers in order to explain the excessive sameness in markets (e.g., the fact that all jeans, serials, cars, toothpastes, etc. are similar, but not exactly the same). Our question is whether it is possible to give a true explanation with “false” (unrealistic) models.

5 10.10 NEA The Dirty Fork

How can a complaint about a dirty fork at a restaurant trigger a series of actions ending up with the restaurant manager stabbing himself in the stomach with the dirty fork? How could seemingly harmless neighborhood choices bring about total racial segregation in a city? Or how could individuals who are trying to get the best trade at the moment end up creating a generally accepted medium of exchange? Some unintended consequences are important for economics. This week we will study the wonders of the invisible hand.

6 17.10 MN How to Build Certain Interesting Things II

Economists can build perfect models of markets. But real markets are not perfect. So why not make real markets similar to our perfect model markets? This week we will study how economists construct real markets from abstract models.

24.10 EXAM
7 31.10 MN How to Irritate People Economists II

This week we will discuss the modern critics of the standard economic theory of choice. This is our introduction to behavioral economics.

8 07.11 MN How to Irritate People Behavioral Economists

Is behavioral economics really different from neoclassical economics? Is it just neoclassical economics in disguise? Let us discuss some discomforting comments concerning behavioral economics.

9 14.11 NEA The Dead Parrot

“We feel much like the customer in the pet shop, beating away at a dead parrot.” Rabin and Thaler (2001: 230)

What to do when the pet shop sells you a dead parrot and does not accept it that the parrot is dead? In 1898 Thorstein Veblen criticized economists for not accepting the fact that Homo Economicus is like a dead parrot. OK he did not say dead parrot. He said “He is not the seat of a process of living.” Our subject this week is institutional economists (including Veblen) and their criticism to economics. Asking questions like “why do firms exist?”, or “why everyone misunderstood the Coase theorem?” we will slowly make our way to the motto “institutions matter”!

10 21.11 NEA Nobody expects the Spanish Institutional Inquisition!

Once upon a time institutional economics was yet another heterodox school of thought in economics. Today almost all economists—even those working at the IMF and the World Bank—accept that institutions matter. How did this happen? This week, we will start from mainstream models of economic growth and explain how and why economists explain why nations fail with institutions.

11 28.11 MN Nudge, nudge

This is the story of behavioral economists going to Washington. Nudge, nudge! Wink, wink! Say no more! How did economists get interested in nudging people into doing things? They have built models, they have built markets, now some of them are trying to build better people and better societies. This week we will discuss why and how people defend nudging.

12 05.12 MN Seduced Milkmen

A seductive woman lures (nudges?) the milkman into entering her house, the milkman ends up in a room with other milkmen, some of whom are very old, including one who is a skeleton. Our questions this week are: How much nudging is too much? Should economists be allowed to manipulate people’s behavior? We will discuss nudge paternalism and its critics and alternatives.

13 12.12 Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit

How to defend economics against an attacker armed with fresh fruit?

19.12 EXAM

Weekly Plan & Reader

[*] indicates a required reading

12.09.2016 | Vocational Guidance Counsellor
(What is wrong with economics education?)

Introduction to the course. Please make sure that you have read the following article before coming to the lecture. (You do not need to write a response paper!)

  • [*] Vromen, Jack (2009) “Economics and philosophy: More than having fun and making fun”, inaugural speech at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

19.09.2016 | The Funniest Joke in the World
(Pop-Economics explains the global financial crisis)

  • [*] Krugman, Paul R. 2009. “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?” The New York Times Magazine, September 2.
  • Robbins, Lionel (1945) “Chapter 1: The Subject Matter of Economics”, in An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economics, London: MacMillan, pp. 1-23.
  • [*] Backhouse, R. E. & S. G. Medema (2009) “On the definition of economics”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23 (1): 221—33.

26.09.2016 | How to Irritate People Economists I
(Economists and Theır Assumptions)

  • [*] Hall, R. L. and C. J. Hitch (1939) “Price Theory and Business Behaviour”, Oxford Economic Papers, 2 (May): 12-45.
  • Vromen, Jack (1995) Economic Evolution: An Enquiry into the Foundations of New Institutional Economics, London: Routledge. Chapter 1
  • Friedman, M. (1953) “The Methodology of Positive Economics”, reprinted in Uskali Mäki (ed.) The Methodology of Positive Economics: Reflections on the Milton Friedman Legacy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-43.
  • Gibbard, A., & Varian, H. R. (1978). Economic Models. The Journal of Philosophy, 75(11), 664–677.

03.10.2016 | How to Build Certain Interesting Things I
(e.g., a linear city, a fictional market and a stable equilibrium)

  • [*] Reiss, Julian. (2012) “The Explanation Paradox.” Journal of Economic Methodology 19 (1): 43–62..
  • [*] Mäki, U. (2013). On a Paradox of Truth, or How Not to Obscure the Issue of Whether Explanatory Models Can Be True. Journal of Economic Methodology, 20(3), 268–279.
  • Rosenberg, A. (2001) “Why Philosophy of Science” in Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, London: Routledge, Chapter 1
  • Little, D. (2005) “Philosophy of Economics” in Sarkar, S. & J. Pfeifer (eds) The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia, London: Routledge.
  • Rosenberg, A. (2001) “Explanation, causation and laws” in Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction, London: Routledge, Chapter 2
  • Glennan, S. (2005) “Explanation” in Sarkar, S. & J. Pfeifer (eds) The Philosophy of Science: An Encyclopedia, London: Routledge.
  • Mäki, Uskali (1992), ‘On the method of isolation in economics’, in Uskali Mäki and C. Dilworth (eds.), Intelligibility in Science (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 26; Atlanta and Amsterdam: Rodopi), 319-54.

10.10.2016 | The Dirty Fork
(How things get out of control with the invisible hand)

  • Any introductory economics textbook on the invisible hand (Homework: before coming to the lecture prepare a summary of how the invisible hand is explained in an introductory textbook)
  • [*] Stiglitz, J. E. (1991). The invisible hand and modern welfare economics. NBER Working Paper.
  • Sugden, Robert (2000), ‘Credible Worlds: The Status of Theoretical Models in Economics’, Journal of Economic Methodology, 7 (1), 1 – 31.
  • Cartwright, Nancy (2009), ‘If no capacities then no credible worlds’, Erkenntnis, 70 (1), 45-58.

17.10.2016 | How to Build Certain Interesting Things II
(Constructing real markets from economic models)

  • [*] Guala, Francesco. (2007) “How to do things with experimental economics.” In  Donald MacKenzie, Fabian Muniesa, and Lucia Siu (eds) Do economists make markets?: 128-162.
  • Alexandrova, Anna. (2006) “Connecting Economic Models to the Real World: Game Theory and the FCC Spectrum Auctions.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36.2: 173-192.
  • Mirowski, Philip, and Edward Nik-Khah. (2007) “Performativity, and a problem in science studies, augmented with consideration of the FCC auctions.” In MacKenzie et al.

31.10.2016 | How to Irritate People Economists II
(Critics of standard economic theory of choice)

  • [*] Thaler, Richard H. (2000) “From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (1): 133-141.
  • [*] Henrich, Joseph, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Ernst Fehr, Herbert Gintis, and Richard McElreath. (2001) “In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies.” The American Economic Review 91(2): 73-78.
  • Ashraf, Nava, Colin F. Camerer, and George Loewenstein. “Adam Smith, behavioral economist.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives3 (2005): 131-145.
  • Henrich, Joseph, Steven J. Heine, and Ara Norenzayan (2010) “The weirdest people in the world?.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences2-3: 61-83.

07.11.2016| How to Irritate People Behavioral Economists
(Neoclassical economics in disguise?)

  • [*] Berg, Nathan, and Gerd Gigerenzer (2010) “As-if behavioral economics: Neoclassical economics in disguise?.” History of Economic Ideas: 133-165.
  • Ross, Don. (2014) “Psychological versus economic models of bounded rationality.”Journal of Economic Methodology 21.4: 411-427.

14.11.2016 | The Dead Parrot
(From the lightning calculator to ‘institutions matter’)

  • [*] Veblen, T. (1898). Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4), 373–397.
  • Coase, R. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4, 386–405.
  • Coase, R. H. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.

21.11.2016 | Nobody expects the Spanish Institutional Inquisition!
(Economists explain why nations fail)

  • [*] Olson Mancur (1996) “Big Bills Left on the Sidewalk: Why Some Nations are Rich, and Others Poor” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2): 3—24.
  • World Economic Outlook, Growth and Institutions, April 2003, 3
  • Greif, Avner (2006) Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres (Chp. 1 & Chp. 2).
  • James A. R and D. Acemoglu (2013) Why Nations Fail, Crown Business. Chp. 1 & 2.

28.11.2016 | Nudge, nudge
(Behavioral economists go to Washington)

  • [*] Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein (2003) “Libertarian paternalism.” The American Economic Review2: 175-179.
  • Amir, On, et al. (2005) “Psychology, behavioral economics, and public policy.”Marketing Letters3-4: 443-454.
  • Chetty, Raj. (2015) “Behavioral economics and public policy: A pragmatic perspective.” The American Economic Review5: 1-33.

05.12.2016 | Seduced Milkmen
(Nudge and its critics/alternatives)

  • [*] Grüne-Yanoff, Till. (2012) “Old wine in new casks: libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles.”Social Choice and Welfare4: 635-645.
  • Beaulier, Scott, and Bryan Caplan. (2007) “Behavioral economics and perverse effects of the welfare state.” Kyklos4: 485-507.
  • Bolton, Gary E., and Axel Ockenfels. (2012)”Behavioral economic engineering.” Journal of Economic Psychology3: 665-676.

12.12.2016 | Self Defense Against Fresh Fruit
(Defend economics against an attacker armed with fresh fruit)

  • [*] Rubinstein, Ariel. “A Sceptic’s Comment on the Study of Economics.” The Economic Journal, 510 (2006): C1-C9.
  • Frank, R.H., Gilovich, T.D.and Regan, D.T. (1996). ‘Do economists make bad citizens?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol.10, pp. 187–92
  • Frey, B. S. and Meier, S.(2003). ‘Are political economists selfish and indoctrinated? Evidence from a natural experiment’, Economic Inquiry, vol. 41, pp.448–62.
  • Cipriani, Giam Pietro, Diego Lubian, and Angelo Zago. “Natural born economists?.” Journal of Economic Psychology3 (2009): 455-468.
  • Bauman, Yoram, and Elaina Rose. “Selection or indoctrination: Why do economics students donate less than the rest?.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization3 (2011): 318-327.
  • Hummel, Katrin, Dieter Pfaff, and Katja Rost. “Does Economics and Business Education Wash Away Moral Judgment Competence?.” Journal of Business Ethics (2016): 1-19.
New Paper: Institutions, Economics and the Development Quest

New Paper: Institutions, Economics and the Development Quest

Institutions, Economics and the Development Quest
Date: 2012-04
By: Duarte N. Leite, Sandra T. Silva, Óscar Afonso
Institutions, crucial for the analysis of how agents deal with uncertainty, have been gaining increasing relevance on the Economic research agenda. In this paper, we analyze the institutional literature that provides insights into different research fields, aiming to explain why this perspective obtains better results than others, in the field of growth and Development Economics. In particular, we stress the relevance of New Institutional Economics as an adequate framework for a broad understanding of development issues.
Keywords: Institutions; Institutional change, Economic development
JEL: B52

EC487 Institutional Economics Reader

EC487 Institutional Economics Reader

Here is the reading list for my Institutional Economics course at Bogazici University (Istanbul, Turkey):

EC 487 (2011) READER

Individuals and Institutions

  1. Henrich, Joseph (2000) “Does Culture Matter in Economic Behavior? Ultimatum Game Bargaining Among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon” American Economic Review, 90 (4): 973—79.
  2. Carpenter, Jeffery & Juan Camilo Cardenas (2006) “Behavioural Development Economics:  Lessons from field labs in the developing world” Middlebury College Economics Discussion Paper No. 06-16 Online:
  3. Camerer, Colin F. & Ernst Fehr (2006) “When Does “Economic Man” Dominate Social Behavior?” Science, 311 (47): 47-52

Old Institutional Economics

  1. Veblen, Thorstein B. (1898) ‘Why Is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(3), July, pp. 373–97.
  2. Chavance, Bernard (2009) Institutional Economics, London: Routledge. (p. 1-44)
  3. Fine, Ben & Milonakis, D. (2009) From Political Economy to Economics: method, the social and the historical in the evolution of economic theory, London: Routledge. (Chp. 9 & 10)
  4. Veblen, T. (1899 [2003]) Theory of Leisure Class (selected parts), in Medema, Steven G. & Samuels Warren J. (2003) The History of Economic Thought: A Reader, London: Routledge (Part 6: Institıtional Economics, 613-645)
  5. Commons, John R. (1931 [2003]) “Institutional Economics” in Medema, Steven G. & Samuels Warren J. The History of Economic Thought: A Reader, London: Routledge (Part 6: Institıtional Economics, 648-654)

New Institutional Economics

  1. Chavance, Bernard (2009) Institutional Economics, London: Routledge. (Chp. 4)
  2. Coase, Ronald (1937) “The Nature of the Firm”, Economica, 4: 386-405
  3. Coase, Ronald (1991) “The Institutional Structure of Production” Nobel Prize Lecture, Reprinted in Menard, C & M. M. Shirley (eds) (2005) Handbook of New Institutional Economics, Springer, p. 31-39.
  4. Williamson, Oliver E. (2000) “The New Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVIII: 595-613.
  5. Alchian, Armen A. & Harold Demsetz (1972) “Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization”, American Economic Review, 62 (5): 777—95.
  6. Demsetz, Harold (1997) “The Firm in Economic Theory: A Quiet Revolution”, American Economic Review, 87 (2), Papers and Proceedings: 426—29.
  7. Klein, Peter “New Institutional Economics”
  8. North, Douglas (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres.

Conventions and Institutions

  1. Chavance, Bernard (2009) Institutional Economics, London: Routledge. (Chp. 3 & Chp.5)
  2. Sugden, Robert (1989) “Spontaneous Order”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3 (4): 85—97.
  3. Young, H. Peyton (1996) “The Economics of Convention”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10 (2): 105—22.

Institutions and Methodology

  1. Hodgson, G. M. (1998) “The Approach of Institutional Economics”, Journal of Economic Literature, 36 (1): 166—92.
  2. Aoki, Masahiko (2001) Toward a Comparative Institutional Analysis, Cambridge: MIT Press. (Chp. 1)
  3. Greif, Avner (2006) Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres (Chp. 1 & Chp. 2).

Growth and Institutions

  1. Olson Mancur (1996) “Big Bills Left on the Sidewalk: Why Some Nations are Rich, and Others Poor” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(2): 3—24.
  2. World Economic Outlook: Growth and Institutions (April 2003) Chapter 3: Growth and Institutions.
  3. Shirley, Mary M. (2008) Institutions and Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. (Chp.1)
  4. Nelson, R. R. & Sampat, B. N. (2001) “Making Sense of Institutions as a Factor Shaping Economic Performance”, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 44: 31-54.
  5. Rodrik, Dani (2000) “Institutions for High Quality Growth: What are they and how to acquire them”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 35 (3): 3—31.
  6. Aron, Janine (2000) “Growth and Institutions: A Review of the Evidence”, The World Bank Research Observer, 15 (1). 99—135.
  7. Sachs, Jeffrey D. (2003) Institutions Matter, but Not for Everything” Finance & Development, June.
  8. Kuran, Timur (2004) “Why the Middle East is Economically Underdeveloped: Historical Mechanisms of Institutional Stagnation”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18 (3): 71—90.
The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics

The Oxford Handbook
Good handbook and a heavy travel companion

The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Economics, Harold Kincaid and Don Ross (eds). Oxford University Press, 2009, xviii + 670 pages

I just finished reading The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy and Economics. Reading it was a marathon…

You know very few individuals read handbooks from the beginning to the end. Exceptions are some reviewers and students. Yet it is an interesting experience.  True, handbooks give you an interesting and thoughtful review of the state of the art concerning its subject matter. But reading the whole thing is still mind boggling. You are exposed to all the debates, disagreements, developments, complexities etc. concerning the subject matter. It is also tiring. Not only because you read a lot of articles one after the other, but also because handbooks are commonly thick and heavy hardcover books: They are hard to carry around, hold in a proper reading position etc. The Oxford Handbook was no exception. It is interesting, mind boggling, thick and heavy!

I wanted to review The Handbook and promised to write the review in April (just a few days left!). Because teaching and other academic activities already took almost all of my time, I needed to create time for read The Handbook in order to finish the review on time. I took it with me almost everywhere I went. It traveled with me between Ankara and Istanbul several times (I teach in both cities). It was a burdensome companion (together with my old and heavy laptop) during my visits to the Amsterdam (ESHET conference) and Helsinki (The Market Workshop). To cut the long story short, it was with me all the time. I can confidently say that the production quality of the book is very good. Its binding is still as new and pages are intact. Yet I am sure you will not want to carry it around like I did.

What about the contents? Well, you’ll read my assessment when I finish the review. However, let me note that The Oxford Handbook will take its place in the shelves of philosophers of economics next to The Handbook of Economic Methodology (1998, Edward Elgar) and The Handbook of the Philosophy of Economics (2011, Elsevier), The Philosophy and Methodology of Economics (2006, Edward Elgar), and Philosophy of Economics. An Anthology (2007, Cambridge University Press). It will be one of the standard reference books for the students of the field. (Btw, teachers of philosophy and methodology of economics already started using articles from The Oxford Handbook as required readings for their courses.)

Especially the first part of the book, which is called “Received Views in Philosophy of Economics”, contains insightful reviews of the philosophy and methodology of economics literature up until recent times. Not only these articles are useful for students, but also they wrap-up what we have learned from philosophy of economics and provide a good overview of the “old” literature for researchers. The following provides a very good overview of Hasman’s, Rosenberg’s and Mäki’s contributions to philosophy of economics:

  • Laws, Causation and Economic Methodology , Daniel Hausman
  • If Economics Is a Science, What Kind of a Science Is It? , Alex Rosenberg
  • Realistic Realism about Unrealistic Models , Uskali Mäki

Mirowski’s article is, as usual, a pleasure to read. You may not agree with him, but this will not reduce the pleasure of reading his piece:

  • Why There Is (as Yet) No Such Thing as an Economics of Knowledge , Philip Mirowski

The rest of the book is devoted to “new” research in philosophy of economics, which is very useful for researchers and students who would like to see the frontiers and blurring borders of the field. The following is a selection of articles that I found clear and teaching.

  • Rationality and Indeterminacy , Cristina Bicchieri
  • Experimental Investigations of Social Preferences , Jim Woodward
  • Advancing Evolutionary Explanations in Economics , Jack Vromen

There are also pieces from economists that alert us to many details that philosophers may overlook when thinking about economics. The following two are very informative in that respect:

  • The Miracle of the Septuagint and the Promise of Data Mining in Economics , Stan du Plessis
  • Facts and Values in Modern Economics , Partha Dasgupta

Of course, this is a personal list of favorites. My selection reflects my interests and does not imply that other articles are not good. I have also learned much from the other articles. In fact, all in all, The Oxford Handbook is a good handbook.

This leaves with me with the following question: Is there a way to write a review of this handbook that will not exceed 3000 words? Let me think…

A Review of The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life by Paul Seabright

A Review of The Company of Strangers: A Natural History of Economic Life by Paul Seabright

Seabright’s The Compnay of Strangers is an interesting book and some parts of it may be considered as a supplementary reading for undergraduate courses concerning philosophy of economics and history of economic thought. But before that it may be useful to read  Haim Ofek’s review of the book which was published by EH.NET:

Read More Read More