Seminar 
Economics and the economic

January 23rd and 24th, 2009, CES Seminar Room


Presentation
The Economy is presently going through a period of deep transformation. Some even speak of a paradigmatic transition process. During the last years multiple and diverse developments, namely at a conceptual and theoretical-methodological level – not rarely in result of the “contamination” of disciplines exterior to Economics, such as the cognitive sciences and experimental psychology or the complexity sciences – have come to disturb the apparent solidity of the old neoclassical paradigm, arising the discussion around its own fundaments. Such is happening with the rationality assumption – central element in the analysis of the processes of choice and deliberation dear to the neoclassical economists – or with the balance concepts.

The very own issue of the identity of economics and its interdisciplinary differences relations will be at stake. Economics is presently a science characterized by a plurality of approaches and theoretical and methodological perspectives and the significance of the expression “to think as an economist” does not seem clear – certainly not being consensual. One thing seems certain. It is necessary to return to the discussion of the issue, that Coase (1994) posed, regarding what ties, among themselves, a group of scholars to an autonomous profession named “economics” and what differentiates them from other researchers such as sociologists, political scientists, etc.

 After all what differentiates Economics as a science? What is “Economic”? These are the main issues we seek to discuss in this seminar. The definition of a science - the question of knowing what to include and what to exclude from the analysis, what is essential and what is not – is much more than a simple drawing of borders: it implies a conception on the nature of the object of study. And, as Sedas Nunes taught, involves the construction of that object whilst “theoretical object”, which presupposes, at once, knowing which questions we pose onto ourselves, which problems we seek to resolve – what is, after all, our core of interest and which theoretical problematic do we define – and, evidently, the construction of a conceptual structure (concepts and relations between objects). Resorting to a set of methods and techniques adequate to the nature of the object of study is also part of this process of constitution of a science.

 What issues do the economists aim to answer? Which are their key-concepts? Is there a specifically economic approach to the social phenomenon? What does it mean “to think as an economist”? Are there methods and techniques without which one cannot speak of economic science? What, after all, differentiates Economics from other social sciences that also dedicate themselves to the analysis of the “economy”? Does it make sense to think a Pure Economics, analytical – like Robbins – separated/independent of Ethics and Politics (that is, from value judgments and from the sphere of applied policy? Finally, in what manner does the definition of “economic” conditions the teaching of Economics? What matters should be indispensable in the training of economists?

Organizing Committee: José Reis, Vítor Neves e José Castro Caldas

Studies on Governance and Economic Institutions Research Group and the Doctoral Programme on Governance, Knowledge and Innovation