Menger’s Anti-Historical Method Versus the Neoclassical Anti-Historical Method

Open access


Due to the famous methodenstreit it is often well argued that Menger’s approach to social sciences can be seen as anti-historical, as according to him pure empirical studies are insufficient to establish a firm economic theory. By suggesting that some theorems have to precede historical studies, Menger may be seen as a representative of the a priori tradition in scientific method. The modern method in the mainstream of economic thinking is also to a large extent anti-historical and a priori, but because of its lack of realism and extensive reliance on very limiting assumptions. The main strength of the Mengerian anti-historical approach is lesser faith in imaginary constructs, implying a higher degree of realism in theorizing.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bagus Philip. 2011. “Morgenstern’s Forgotten Contribution: A Stab to the Heart of Modern Economics” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology Vol. 70 No. 2.

  • Boland Lawrence A. 1979. “A Critique of Friedman’s Critics” Journal of Economic Literature Vol. 17 No. 2.

  • Boland Lawrence A. 1994 Scientific Thinking Without Scientific Method: Two Views of Popper in New Directions in Economic Methodology ed. by R. A. Backhouse New York: Routledge.

  • Bostaph Samuel. 2003. “Wieser on Economic Calculation under Socialism” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6:2.

  • Bylund Per L.; G.P Manish. 2017. “Private Property and Economic Calculation: A Reply to Andy Denis” Review of Political Economy Vol. 29 No. 3.

  • Clark Gregory. 2007. A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press.

  • Denis Andy. 2015. “Economic Calculation: Private Property or Several Control” Review of Political Economy 27(4).

  • Friedman Milton. 1953. “Methodology of Positive Economics” in: Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Georgescu-Rogen N. 1988. “Closing Remarks: About Economic Growth: A Variation on a Theme by David Hilbert” Economic Development and Cultural Change 36:3 supplement.

  • Harding Sandra G. 1976. Can Theories be Refuted?: Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

  • Hoppe Hans Hermann. 2007. “The Limits of Numerical Probability: Frank H. Knight and Ludwig von Mises and the Frequency Interpretation” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics Vol. 10 No. 1.

  • Huerta de Soto Jesús. 1998. “The Ongoing Methodenstreit of The Austrian School” Journal desÉconomistes et desÉtudes Humaines 1998 vol. 8 issue 1.

  • Jaffé William. 1976. “Menger Jevons and Walras De-homogenized” Economic Inquiry 14 December.

  • Knight Frank. 1940. “‘What is Truth’ in Economics?”. Journal of Political Economy 48:1.

  • Lakatos Imre. 1978.The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lange O. 1936. “On the Economic Theory of Socialism: Part One” Review of Economic Studies 4:1.

  • Mäki U. 2009. The Methodology of Positive Economics Reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. Cambridge University Press.

  • Menger Carl. 1985. Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences. New York University Press.

  • Mises L. 1966. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Chicago IL: Contemporary Books.

  • Mises Ludwig. 1990. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Auburn Al: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

  • Morgenstern Oskar. 1963. On the Accuracy of Economic Observations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  • Popper Karl. 1959. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.

  • Popper Karl. 1994. The Myth of the Framework. In defense of science and rationality (edited by M. A. Notturno). London: Routledge.

  • Schumpeter Joseph. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Sen Amartya. 1985. The Standard of Living. Cambridge University Press.

  • Shankland R. S. 1964. “Michelson-Morley Experiment” American Journal of Physics 32 16.

  • Smith Barry. 1994. Austrian Philosophy. The Legacy of Franz Brentano Chicago: Open Court.

  • Smith Barry. 1996. “In Defense of (Fallibistic) Apriorism”. Journal of Libertarian Studies 12.

  • Streissler Erich. 1973. “To What Extent Was the Austrian School Marginalist?” in R. Collinson Black et al (eds.) The Marginal Revolution in Economics: Interpretation and Evaluation. Durham NC: Duke University Press.

  • Wade Hands D. 2009. Did Milton Friedman’s Positive Methodology License the Formalist Revolution? (w:) M¨aki U. 2009. The Methodology of Positive Economics Reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.

  • Wieser Friedrich. 1971. Natural Value. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Cite Score 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.358

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 128 128 23
PDF Downloads 96 96 4