Current Issue
Past Issues
About the Journal
Aims and Scope
Publisher
Editorial Board
Publishing Ethics
Indexing and Archiving
Copyright, Licensing and Access
For Authors
Submission Guidelines
Publication Fees
Peer-review Process
Editorial and Production Processes
Corrections and Retractions
Publishing Ethics
Copyright, Licensing and Access
Contact Us
RESEARCH PAPER
Strife over Method 2.0: The Battle for the Soul of Economics Between Neoclassical and Heterodox Economists
1
Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, Poland
Submission date: 2025-06-06
Final revision date: 2025-11-24
Acceptance date: 2025-11-27
Publication date: 2026-09-30
GNPJE 2026;327(3):84-110
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
ABSTRACT
The contemporary debate between heterodox and neoclassical economics (NE) is unproductive. This paper aims to foster a more constructive discussion by analysing the historical perspective. The current discussion resembles the Methodenstreit, in which Schmoller and Menger proposed two different visions of economics. Now, as then, the question remains: Should economics be more like a natural or a humanistic science? Should it be a deductive, value-free approach based on methodological individualism and homo economicus (NE) or a value-laden open-system approach based on methodological holism and homo sapiens (heterodoxy)? I treat the Methodenstreit as a starting point for the subsequent battles over method. I analyse them to show the unchanging bone of contention between heterodoxy and NE. I do so by analysing four methodological assumptions that define these two visions of economics. Moreover, I show how NE prevailed in the strife over method. Lastly, I propose a normative conception, “strife over method 2.0”, aimed at improving the current discussion between heterodoxy and NE.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the Internal Research Grant of the Faculty of Economics and Finance at the Wroclaw University of Economics. Grant number: MPK: B701210.
REFERENCES (103)
1.
Angner E. [2019], We’re all behavioral economists now, Journal of Economic Methodology, 26 (3): 195–207, https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1350178X.2019.1625210.
2.
Backhouse R. E., Cherrier B. [2017], The age of the applied economist: the transformation of economics since the 1970s, History of Political Economy, 49: 1–33, https://doi.org/10.1215/001827....
3.
Becker G. S. [1976], The economic approach to human behavior, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
4.
Becker G. S. [1993], Nobel lecture: the economic way of looking at behavior, Journal of Political Economy, 101 (3): 385–409, https:// doi.org/10.1086/261880.
6.
Bye R. T. [1924], Some recent developments of economic theory, in: Tugwell R. G. (ed.), The Trend of Economics: 269–300, Knopf, New York.
7.
Chester L., Jo T. (eds.) [2022], Heterodox economics: legacy and prospects, World Economics Association Books, Bristol.
8.
Clark J. M. [1924], The socializing of theoretical economics, in: Tugwell R. G. (ed.), The Trend of Economics: 71–102, Knopf, New York.
9.
Colander D. [2000], The death of neoclassical economics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2): 127–143, https://doi. org/10.1080/10427710050025330.
10.
Colander D. [2010], Moving beyond the rhetoric of pluralism: suggestions for an “inside-the-mainstream” heterodoxy, in: Garnett Jr R., Olsen E., Starr M. (eds.), Economic pluralism: 36–47, Routledge, London and New York.
11.
Colander D., Holt R., Barkley Rosser J. [2004], The changing face of mainstream economics, Review of Political Economy, 16 (4): 485–499, https://doi.org/10.1080/095382....
12.
Colander D., Su H. C. [2018], How economics should be done: essays on the art and craft of economics, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northampton.
13.
Copeland M. A. [1924], Communities of economic interest and the price system, in: Tugwell R. G. (ed.), The Trend of Economics: 103–150, Knopf, New York.
14.
Davidson P. [2004], A response to King’s argument for pluralism, Post-Autistic Economics Review, 24: 2–5.
15.
Dequech D. [2007], Neoclassical, mainstream, orthodox, and heterodox economics, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2): 279–302, https://doi.org/10.2753/PKE016....
16.
Dobusch L., Kapeller J. [2012], Heterodox United vs. Mainstream City? Sketching a framework for interested pluralism in eco¬nomics, Journal of Economic Issues, 46 (4): 1035–1058, https://doi.org/10.2753/JEI002....
17.
Dow S.C. [1997], Methodological pluralism and pluralism of method, in: Salanti A., Screpanti E. (eds.), Pluralism in Economics: 89–104, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham and Northampton.
18.
Dow S.C. [2000], Prospects for the progress of heterodox economics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2): 157–170, https:// doi.org/10.1080/10427710050025367.
19.
Dow S.C. [2004], Structured pluralism, Journal of Economic Methodology, 11 (3): 275–290, https://doi.org/10.1080/135017... 42000252965.
20.
Dow S.C. [2012], Foundations for new economic thinking: a collection of essays, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
21.
Dow S.C. [2013], Formalism, rationality, and evidence: the case of behavioural economics, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 6 (3): 26–43, https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.....
22.
Earl P. E. [2010], Economics fit for the Queen: a pessimistic assessment of its prospects, Prometheus, 28 (3): 209–225, https://doi. org/10.1080/08109028.2010.511773.
23.
Earl P. E., Peng T. C. [2012], Brands of economics and the Trojan horse of pluralism, Review of Political Economy, 24 (3): 451– 467, https://doi.org/10.1080/095382....
24.
Earle J., Moran C., Ward-Perkins Z. [2016], The econocracy: the perils of leaving economics to the experts, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
25.
Feyerabend P. [1975], Against method: outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge, Verso, London.
26.
Fischer L., Hasell J., Proctor J. C., Uwakwe D., Ward-Perkins Z., Watson C. (eds.) [2017], Rethinking economics, Routledge, Tay¬lor & Francis Group, London and New York.
27.
Garnett R. F. [2006], Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics, Review of Political Economy, 18 (4): 521–546, https://doi. org/10.1080/09538250600915725.
28.
Giere R. N. [2006], Perspectival pluralism, in: Kellert S.H., Longino H. E., Waters K. C. (eds.), Scientific Pluralism: 26–41, Univ. of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
29.
Gigerenzer G., Berg N. [2010], As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?, History of Economic Ideas, 18 (1): 133–165, https://doi.org/10.1400/140334.
30.
Gräbner C., Strunk B. [2020], Pluralism in economics: its critiques and their lessons, Journal of Economic Methodology, 27 (4): 311–329, https://doi.org/10.1080/135017....
31.
Hausman D., McPherson M., Satz D. [2016], Economic analysis, moral philosophy, and public policy, Cambridge University Press, Cam¬bridge.
32.
Hein E. [2023], Macroeconomics after Kalecki and Keynes: post-Keynesian foundations, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northampton.
33.
Hicks J. R. [1937], Mr. Keynes and the “classics”; a suggested interpretation, Econometrica, 5 (2): 147–159, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1907242.
34.
Hodgson G. M. [2000], What is the essence of institutional economics?, Journal of Economic Issues, 34 (2): 317–329, https://doi. org/10.1080/00213624.2000.11506269.
35.
Hodgson G. M. [2001], How economics forgot history: the problem of historical specificity in social science, Routledge, London.
36.
Hodgson G. M. [2004], The evolution of institutional economics, Routledge, London.
37.
Hodgson G. M. [2007], Evolutionary and institutional economics as the new mainstream?, Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 4 (1): 7–25, https://doi.org/10.14441/eier.....
38.
Hodgson G. M. [2012], On the limits of rational choice theory, Economic Thought, 1 (1): 94–108.
39.
Hodgson G. M. [2019], Is there a future for heterodox economics? Institutions, ideology and a scientific community, Edward Elgar Pub¬lishing, Cheltenham and Northampton.
40.
Hodgson G. M., Mäki U., McCloskey D.N. [1992], Plea for a pluralistic and rigorous economics, American Economic Review, 82 (2): xxv.
41.
Hutchison T. [1973], Some themes from investigations into method, in: Hicks J. R., Weber W. (eds.), Carl Menger and the Austrian School of Economics: 15–37, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
42.
Infante G., Lecouteux G., Sugden R. [2016], Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional.
43.
wisdom of behavioural welfare economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, 23 (1): 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/135017....
45.
Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., Thaler R. [1986], Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market, American Economic Review, 76 (4): 728–741.
46.
Kapeller J. [2013], ‘Model-platonism’ in economics: on a classical epistemological critique, Journal of Institutional Economics, 9 (2): 199–221, https://doi.org/10.1017/S17441....
47.
Keynes J. N. [1891], The scope and method of political economy, Macmillan, London.
48.
King J. E. [2012], Post Keynesians and others, Review of Political Economy, 24 (2): 305–319, https://doi.org/10.1080/095382....
49.
Kjosavik D. J. [2003], Methodological individualism and rational choice in neoclassical economics: a review of institutionalist critique, Forum for Development Studies, 30 (2): 205–245, https://doi.org/10.1080/080394....
50.
Knight F. H. [1924], The limitations of scientific method in economics, in: Tugwell R.G. (ed.), The Trend of Economics: 229–267, Knopf, New York.
51.
Knight F. H. [1925], Fact and metaphysics in economic psychology, American Economic Review, 15 (2): 247–266.
52.
Koopmans T. C. [1947], Measurement without theory, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 29 (3): 161–172, https://doi.org/10.2307/192862....
53.
Kuhn T. [1970], The structure of scientific revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
54.
Kvangraven I., Alves C. [2019], Heterodox economics as a positive project: revisiting the debate, ESRC GPID Research Network Working Paper No. 19, https://gpid.univie.ac.at/wp-c... (accessed on 12.06.2026).
55.
Lakatos I. [1980], The methodology of scientific research programmes, Philosophical Papers Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
56.
Larue L. [2022], A defense of reasonable pluralism in economics, Journal of Economic Methodology, 29 (4): 294–308, https://doi.org/10.1080/135017....
57.
Lavoie M. [2022], Post-Keynesian economics: new foundations, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham and Northampton.
59.
Lawson T. [2002], Should economics be an evolutionary science? Veblen’s concern and philosophical legacy, Journal of Economic Issues, 36 (2): 279–292, https://doi.org/10.1080/002136....
61.
Lawson T. [2006], The nature of heterodox economics, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30 (4): 483–505, https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/be....
62.
Lawson T. [2013], What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics?, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37 (5): 947–983, https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/be....
63.
Lee F. S. [2012], Heterodox economics and its critics, Review of Political Economy, 24 (2): 337–351, https://doi.org/10.1080/095382....
64.
Louzek M. [2011], The battle of methods in economics: The classical Methodenstreit – Menger vs. Schmoller, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70 (2): 439–463, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1536....
65.
Mäki U. [1997], Universals and the Methodenstreit: a re-examination of Carl Menger’s conception of economics as an exact science, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 28 (3): 475–495, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-....
66.
Mearman A., Berger S., Guizzo D. [2023], What is heterodox economics? Insights from interviews with leading thinkers, Journal of Economic Issues, 57 (4): 1119–1141, https://doi.org/10.1080/002136....
67.
Menger C. [1976] [1871], Principles of economics, New York University Press, New York.
68.
Menger C. [1985] [1883], Investigations into the method of the social sciences, New York University Press, New York.
69.
Mill J. S. [1836], On the definition of political economy; and on the method of investigation proper to it, London and Westminster Review, 4: 120–164.
70.
Mills F. C., Hollander J. C., Viner J., Wilson E. B., Mitchell W. C., Taussig F. W., Adams J. D., Black T. S., Cobb J. C. [1928], The present status and future prospects of quantitative economics. Round Table Discussion, American Economic Review, 18 (1): 28–45.
71.
Mirowski P. [1989], More heat than light: economics as social physics, physics as nature’s economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
72.
Mitchell W. C. [1925], Quantitative analysis in economic theory, American Economic Review, 15 (1): 1–12.
73.
Mongin P. [2006], Value judgments and value neutrality in economics, Economica, 73 (290): 257–286, https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1468-0335.2006.00501.x.
74.
North D. C. [1990], Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
75.
Osmani S.R. [2019], Rationality, behavioural economics and Amartya Sen, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 20 (2): 162–180, https://doi.org/10.1080/194528....
76.
Ostapiuk A. [2021], The eclipse of value-free economics. The concept of multiple self versus homo economicus, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, Wrocław.
77.
Ostapiuk A. [2024], Neoclassical economics’ immunisation strategies against behavioural economics: Popper’s perspective. Gos¬podarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, 320 (4): 51–73, https://doi.org/10.33119/GN/19....
78.
Ostapiuk A. [2026a], The unchanging soul of neoclassical economics. Lakatosian perspective on Becker’s economic approach. Panoeconomicus, 73 (4): 511–541, https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN240....
79.
Ostapiuk A. [2026b], Heliocentric economics: a middle ground between neoclassical monism and heterodox pluralism, Ekonomista, (2): 141–171, https://doi.org/10.52335/ekon/....
80.
Robbins L. [1932], An essay on the nature and significance of economic science, Macmillan, London.
81.
Robbins L. [1935], An essay on the nature and significance of economic science (2nd ed), Macmillan, London.
82.
Rodrik D. [2015], Economics rules: why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
83.
Rutherford M. [2011], The institutionalist movement in American economics, 1918–1947: science and social control, Cambridge Uni¬versity Press, New York.
84.
Shionoya Y. (ed.) [2001], The German Historical School: the historical and ethical approach to economics, Routledge, London and New York.
85.
Schmoller G. [1874], Über einige Grundfragen des Rechts und der Volkswirtschaft, Part One, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 23: 225–349.
86.
Schmoller G. [1883], Zur Methodologie der Staats- und Sozialwissenschaften, Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volk¬swirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, 7 (3): 975–94.
87.
Schmoller G. [1894], The idea of justice in political economy, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 4 (5): 697–737, https://doi.org/10.1177/000271....
88.
Schmoller G. [1904], Über einige Grundfragen der Sozialpolitik und der Volkswirtschaftslehre, Duncker & Humblot reprints, Leipzig.
89.
Schmoller G. [1964] [1888], Schmoller on Roscher, in: Spiegel H. W. (ed.), The Development of Economic Thought: 221–236, Wiley, New York.
90.
Schumpeter J. A. [1972], A history of economic analysis, Allen and Unwin, London.
91.
Sent E. M. [2004], Behavioral economics: how psychology made its (limited) way back into economics, History of political economy, 36 (4): 735–760, https://doi.org/10.1215/001827....
92.
Simon H. A. [1957], Administrative behavior: a study of decision-making processes in administrative organization (2nd ed), Macmillan, New York.
93.
Stigler G. J., Becker G. S. [1977], De gustibus non est disputandum, American Economic Review, 67 (2): 76–90.
94.
Thaler R. H. [2015], Misbehaving: the making of behavioral economics, W. W. Norton & Company, New York.
95.
Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. [2008], Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, Yale University Press, New Haven.
96.
Veblen T. [1898], Why is economics not an evolutionary science?, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12 (4): 373–397, https:// doi.org/10.2307/1882952.
97.
Veblen T. [1961] [1919], The place of science in modern civilisation and other essays, Russell & Russell, New York.
98.
Veblen T. [2017a] [1914], The instinct of workmanship and the state of the industrial arts, Routledge, New York.
100.
Williamson O. E. [1985], The economic institutions of capitalism, Free Press, New York.
101.
Williamson O. E. [2000], The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead, Journal of Economic Literature, 38 (3): 595–613, https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.38....
102.
Wolfe A. B. [1924], Functional economics, in: Tugwell R. G. (ed.), The Trend of Economics: 443–482, Knopf, New York.
103.
Yonay Y. P. [1998], The struggle over the soul of economics: institutionalist and neoclassical economists in America between the wars, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2300-5238 |
© 2006-2026 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
