Comments on: Economists on Interdisciplinarity http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/01/09/economists-on-interdisciplinarity/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:42:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Rafe Champion http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/01/09/economists-on-interdisciplinarity/#comment-68036 Rafe Champion Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:10:23 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/01/09/economists-on-interdisciplinarity/#comment-68036 A massive opportunity to integrate the social sciences went begging in the late 1930s when Parsons, Mises and Popper (working on three different continents) converged on the same framework of analysis - the action frame of reference, praxeology and situational analysis. Of course the late 1930s into the '40s was not a great time for collaboration between people working on different continents. Talcott Parsons then lost the plot. Mises and Popper (despite being in the same rooms at the first Mont Pelerin meeting) never got together properly, even though they were both obsessed with the same intellectual errors - historicism and positivism. All very strange but the point in this context is that their models clearly articulate the way that work in various disciplines can come together in a synergistic way. For some rambling thoughts on this http://www.the-rathouse.com/EvenMoreAustrianProgram/EMAParsonsMI.html A massive opportunity to integrate the social sciences went begging in the late 1930s when Parsons, Mises and Popper (working on three different continents) converged on the same framework of analysis - the action frame of reference, praxeology and situational analysis. Of course the late 1930s into the ’40s was not a great time for collaboration between people working on different continents. Talcott Parsons then lost the plot. Mises and Popper (despite being in the same rooms at the first Mont Pelerin meeting) never got together properly, even though they were both obsessed with the same intellectual errors - historicism and positivism. All very strange but the point in this context is that their models clearly articulate the way that work in various disciplines can come together in a synergistic way. For some rambling thoughts on this http://www.the-rathouse.com/EvenMoreAustrianProgram/EMAParsonsMI.html

]]> By: spostrel http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/01/09/economists-on-interdisciplinarity/#comment-68035 spostrel Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:53:23 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/01/09/economists-on-interdisciplinarity/#comment-68035 The thing to bear in mind is that it is much, much easier to learn techniques while you're in grad school than at any time thereafter. For an economist, getting acquainted with as many modeling tricks as possible and seeing how they work or don't work on different substantive problems is extremely important. I would prefer to see these methods introduced in the context fo substantive courses--industrial organization, labor, micro, etc.--than as stand-alone exercises, so I think the current system, for all its flaws, has substantial merit. I'd be all for cutting the time allocated to macro and introducing more ideas on the econ-sociology, econ-psychology, econ-anthropology, and econ-political science boundaries. The thing to bear in mind is that it is much, much easier to learn techniques while you’re in grad school than at any time thereafter. For an economist, getting acquainted with as many modeling tricks as possible and seeing how they work or don’t work on different substantive problems is extremely important. I would prefer to see these methods introduced in the context fo substantive courses–industrial organization, labor, micro, etc.–than as stand-alone exercises, so I think the current system, for all its flaws, has substantial merit.

I’d be all for cutting the time allocated to macro and introducing more ideas on the econ-sociology, econ-psychology, econ-anthropology, and econ-political science boundaries.

]]>