Suchergebnisse

The dispute between Hollander and Peart, and Hirsch, turns on the nature and role of verification in Mill's perception of the appropriate method for Political Economy. Professor Hirsch maintains against us that, for Mill, the models constructed by political economists are insulated from verification. His case is based on two counterclaims. First, that when Mill writes of "verification" in Book III of the Logic, he has in mind a procedure differing from that appropriate for Political Economy, which allows only "indirect verification" (outlined in Book VI). Hirsch finds that Hollander and Peart confuse the two. Secondly, since the contexts of our case studies often relate to policy formulation, Hirsch finds our elucidations of an appeal to experience of a more basic order to be unconvincing.

We believe an additional, and contrasting, interpretation of Mill's method is supported by the evidence. For in our view Mill insisted on the possibility of theory modification in the light of inadequacies revealed by empirical evidence, and also held that the central behavioral axiom is not of universal relevance but is pertinent only to the local circumstances of contemporary Great Britain and America—and, even so, qualified as we shall see—that axiom itself is empirically based. On our reading, there is more in common between his research strategy and that of Milton Friedman than is sometimes granted, at least when Friedman's position on theory appraisal is appreciated in the manner of Hirsch and De Marchi (1990). As Fels has paraphrased this position in a review: "start with a thorough marshalling of facts, frame a hypothesis to explain them, make predictions from the hypothesis about facts not used in constructing it, compare the predictions with the actual facts, revise the hypothesis in response to the outcome of the tests, and continue in an iterative fashion" (1991, p. 84).

In this volume, Bradley C. S. Watson and Joseph Postell bring together some of America's most eminent thinkers on political economy in an attempt to reconnect the discipline of economics to larger discussions about the human good. The book shows how political ideas and economic theories can-and must-inform each other, and is essential reading for anyone interested in politics, economics, history, and culture.

ABSTRACT Professor Martin Bronfenbrenner's mark on the economics profession was significant and worth remembering. He touched the lives of many as a father, cousin, teacher, scholar, expert referee, colleague, and judge of important contemporary debates. Of special interest is his unique personality. He was a specialist in self‐effacement, peppered with liberal shakes of cynicism and sarcasm. Despite all this, he managed to win the respect and hearts of individuals on several continents and across several generations. This essay brings a small but diverse part of the story together in one place.