It is possible for economics to become a science — if only the discipline would abandon its present practice of eschewing empirical tests of its theories in favour of ‘formal’ ones
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Why Economics Is Not Yet a Science (ed. Eichner, A.S.), (Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 1983).
Samuelson, P. Foundations of Economic Analysis, (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1948).
Blaug, M. The Methodology of Economics 159–169 (Cambridge University Press, 1980).
Pasinetti, L.L. Structural Change and Economic Growth, (Cambridge University Press, 1983).
Eichner, A.S. Managerial and Decision Economics 4, 135–151 (1983).
Eichner, A.S. A Guide to Post-Keynesian Theory (Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 1979).
Eichner, A.S. & Kregel, J.A. J. Econ. Lit. 13, 1293–1314 (1975).
Eichner, A.S. Towards a New Economics (Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 1985).
Robinson, J. Rev. econ. Stud. 21, 81–106 (1954).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Eichner, A. The lack of progress in economics. Nature 313, 427–428 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1038/313427a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/313427a0
This article is cited by
-
To the defence of economics
Nature (1985)