Alpar Lošonc

English

Research Papers in Economics

PANOECONOMICUS, 2008, 3, str. 399-402                                                                Book Review 
 
 
Kosta Josifidis, Ekonomija: nauka ili metafizika, 
nekoliko metodoloških po(r)uka (Economics: Sci-
ence or Metaphysics, a Few Methodological Mes-
sages) Futura publikacije, Novi Sad 2007. 
 
Alpar Lošonc* 
 
Let me begin with a notice written by an important representative of methodol-
ogy quoted several times in this book: “The study of methodology is an agoniz-
ing task, writing a book on the subject requires the skills of an individual who is 
at once presumptous and masochistic.”
1 Methodology has been squeezed by 
pressure from different sources. Why is this task so “agonizing” and what is 
more, why is this enagagement “masochistic? Why is someone devoted to this 
troublesome task? First of all, methodology could not been subordinated to sim-
ple problem-solving. According to our contemporary “postmodern” pluralistic 
belief there is no single infallible method, “one” best path that could open every 
door, or that could reduce every complexity. There is no single method waiting 
to be applied for all situations loaded with economic aspects. There is no ulti-
mate ground to arbitrate among the different positions in economic theories. Be-
sides, there is difficulty integrating methodology in modern curricula; rather, 
economists practice their methodology by plying their scientific trade. So, the 
task with methodology is risky, hopes are doubtful, results uncertain--even ob-
scure--there is an increasing degree of specialisation in economics and division 
of academic research labour that makes difficult to account comprehensively the 
subject. The economists who practice their research could be sceptical concern-
ing the methodology that needs interdisciplinary work, inclination to transcend 
economic frames, and receptiveness in relation to the philosophy of science. But, 
despite the extreme difficulties methodology confronts, the task is obvious, 
namely, to make and endorse a difference between relativistic and pluralistic 
approaches. In this sense, pluralism in methodology does not mean giving up the 
chance for assesments or value-laden treatments in economics, but sensitivity to 
different perspectives and readiness for frame within which alternative positions 
are in dialogue. Conversations among divergent theoretical and political posi-
                                                 
* Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department for Social Sciences, Novi Sad: corna@EUnet.yu 
Received 15 September 2008.The review is written under the auspices of the project 149032   
supported by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia. 
1 B. Caldwell, Beyond Positivism, Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century, London, New 
York, 1994 (1982), 1. Book Review 
  400 
tions are always intricate and demanding; the pluralistic methodology could con-
tribute to complex discussions on economics. I would say that there is an strong 
ethics of methodology in the situation of uncertainty. 
  The dimensions I have mentioned represent the background for Kosta 
Josifidis's book that leads us to the centre of the methodological controversies in 
economics. He interprets these dilemmas with the sharp title of the book: is eco-
nomics science or metaphysics? This alternation sounds very provocative, and 
we experience throughout the book how the study of methodology forces a per-
son to examine even the sense of economics. In fact, the person engaged in 
methodology is always at a semi-distance concerning economics; she is not “in” 
because for her, all aspects are questionable, even the basic sense of her subject. 
The title of the book and the approach followed through the book is challenging 
because the author deconstructs the incontestable authority of science, and what 
is more, the indisputable science of economics. Taking into account the simple 
fact that connecting metaphysics with the destiny of economics could be a blas-
phemy for a lot of economists the profile of challenge made by Josifidis is ap-
parent. For some, methodology could be an interference into the business of 
economics as usual. Science has an unquestioned authority for our epoch and the 
belief in economic science is based on this authority. So, there is a question for 
the reader: how to be involved in economics without certainty in relation to the 
status of economics? We do not get a simple answer to the fundamental question 
but a deep and well-informed problematizing of the main positions. Methodol-
ogy, as we saw earlier, cannot bring for us desired certainty and ultimate valid-
ity. The author of this book does not make reading or interpretation of it easier 
for us, he keeps the alternation open; actually, his argumentation proves that the 
point is precisely this openness. The aforementioned ethics of methodology lies 
exactly in this openess. Josifidis's hope is the following: the engagement in 
methodology could contribute to the question how to gain knowledge in eco-
nomics, this could shed light on the practice of economics; by getting knowledge 
on divergent methodological positions one may avoid the gaps of narrow per-
spective that characterizes a lot of approaches. 
  Let us take a step to get a picture of the book. It includes nine chapters 
and we should remark that the presentation of methodologies is less than com-
plete. The author presents his book as a work in progress. Actually, he themes 
the dynamics of economic knowledge concerning the achievements of positivist 
methodology in twentieth century. This book could be understood as the intel-
lectual journey across the confrontations related to positivism. This explains why 
a considerable part of the book deals with the different representations of posi-
tivism. Each of the chapters begins with a review of either a famous debate be-
tween two economists (Robbins versus Hutchison, for example), or a statement 
by a prominent positivist economist. The author announces the next book will 
replicate this approach with the post-positivistic situation in methodology and Book Review 
  401 
may further clarify, unify, categorize and explicate debates in the field of eco-
nomics.  
What about the construction of the text, about the textual organisation in 
this book? Josifidis in all chapters follows the same line of reasoning; selecting 
and concentrating the main dimensions of given methodology, he renders possi-
ble for the reader to confront with the substantial position of the given theory, 
and at the end of the chapter he makes engaged commentaries. His discoursive 
position is not neutral and does not take a perspective of impartial spectator who 
only mechanically enumerates the selected viewpoints. Methodology is not a set 
of unbiased and technical procedures, moreover, it is always embedded in broad 
theoretical and ideological perspectives. Besides, we notice a characteristic fact: 
familiar with macroeconomics, Josifidis frequently refers to the theoretical in-
terpretations in this field of economics. Actually, macroeconomics is seen as the 
special battlefield for the divergencies in methodology. 
The first chapter shapes the aspects of crucial dilemma mentioned in the 
title of the book. The reader gets knowledge about the fact why we cannot avoid 
this dilemma in economics. Metaphysics is, as we know, exposed in modernity 
to the radical critique, but its frames are renewned in the era of “growth of the 
knowledge”. What does metaphysics mean in the epoch that celebrates the un-
conditional development of science? These questions are at the centre of this 
chapter. 
The second chapter deals with positivism/scientism, the philosophy of 
logical positivism influenced by the empiricist tradition. Logical positivism is 
connected to culture with the domination of technological effectivity. The basic 
intellectual position is presented as the situation of neutral spectator free from 
ideological statements, but as the author proves this position hides non-
recognized postulates. Positivism immerses into the understanding of science as 
an autarchic activity freed from engagement and value-laden assesments. 
The third chapter develops further the argumentation of the previous 
chapter. Therefore, the subject is logical positivism in economics through the 
methodological arrangements of Lionel Robbins and Terese Hutchison. Josifidis 
shows that the essential orientations in logical positivism of economics are born 
in the conflicts between these economists. Because of this fact, he accentuates 
the convergencies and divergencies between Robbins and Hutchison. As we see 
in this chapter, the debate could introduce the other relevant methodological ap-
proaches in positivism. 
Positivism is not a homogenous doctrine without any differences. The 
fourth chapter demonstrates this. There are four directions explicated in this 
chapter: a) Harvard-positivism, b) MIT-positivism, c) Chicago-positivism, d) 
LSE-positivism. The kaleidoscope of positivism makes possible the comparative 
attitude of the author--Josifidis uses this to weigh against, link, evaluate, balance 
among different stances. Economic positivism is dependent on the premise of Book Review 
  402 
the perfect market with perfect functioning of the price-system. Josifidis ac-
knowledges the rhetorical effects of logical positivism, but provides evidence 
that this rhetorical commitment is associated with the ideological presupposi-
tions. 
There is a similar connection between the fifth and sixth chapters: the 
fifth chapter confronts positive and normative standpoints, the next chapter ap-
plies this conflict to economics, considering especially welfare economics. What 
forms this difference between positive and normative viewpoints? Which ten-
dency in economics intensifies this divergent perspective? The answer is the fol-
lowing: the point is not which standpoint is loaded with ideological premises, 
but this difference, the installment of this difference is ideological tout court. 
The next chapter deals with value and ideology in economics. This issue 
is outwardly important for the author of this book and in a certain way summa-
rizes his efforts. The reader finds this question repeatedly at the end of the book, 
because the last chapter is also devoted to the articulation of the value and ideol-
ogy. The critical stance of the author here is very clear: he assesses negatively 
the dominant value-neutrality of economic science, and points out the prescrip-
tive, value-embedded dimensions of economics. He even emphasizes that the 
value-neutrality, value-free statements obstructs the further development of eco-
nomic science. 
The eighth chapter problematizes Popper's falsificationism. In Josifidis’s 
book, Popper is a liminal phenomenon, but we can read that Popper will be 
treated with more details in the next book. Popper opens the other methodologi-
cal path concerning the positivism and this leads us to the post-positivism, so we 
move away from the positivistic treatment of knowledge. 
In conclusion, in Serbia few economists have expressed any interest in 
methodology. Consequently, this book is quite unique in relation to standard 
theoretical product in this country. Methodology is poorly-developed in Serbia. 
Few economists keep up with developments in the philosophy of science, and 
dynamics of methodology. There is a conviction that the methodology is a waste 
of time for the economist in the non-western country that could bring only fur-
ther confusion and misunderstandings. This book proves the opposite, that 
methodology matters everywhere. 

Book review: Kosta Josifidis, Ekonomija: nauka ili metafizika, nekoliko metodolokih po(r)uka (Economics: Science or Metaphysics, a Few Methodological Messages)Futura publikacije, Novi Sad 2007.

http://www.panoeconomicus.rs/casopis/jedanaestibroj/economics%20science%20or%20metaphysics%20a%20few%20methodological%20messages.pdf

Book review: Kosta Josifidis, Ekonomija: nauka ili metafizika, nekoliko metodolokih po(r)uka (Economics: Science or Metaphysics, a Few Methodological Messages)Futura publikacije, Novi Sad 2007.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics