ABSTRACT OF PAPER
Title: New Forms of the Biological Controversy in Cliometrics: A Methodological Critique of Fogel (post 1982) and Galor (2013)
Author: Leviaux Pierre, Parent Antoine
One of the major controversies in economics concerns the use of biological references in economic thought (Malthus, Darwin, Marshall, Veblen, Boulding, Alchian, Penrose, Nelson & Winter, etc.). The resort to biological "analogies", "metaphors" and "concepts" is an important aspect of the history of the relationships between economics and biology and a source of controversy. This controversy continues today in the most recent work of two cliometricians, Fogel (post 1982) and Galor (2013). In this paper, we focus on the theories of historical growth relying on biological explanations which are formulated by these two prominent cliometricians, from the angle of biological reductionism. We propose a methodological critique of Fogel's and Galor's use of biological variables as determinants of the historical dynamics of economic growth. Based upon the transposition to the field of economics of Ernst Mayr's distinction between functional and evolutionary biology and his definitions of reductionism, we argue that both Fogel's and Galor's methodologies and causal inferences are questionable. In particular, we stress the need for a careful examination of the biological mechanisms implied by these two economists. This paper is organised as follows. Section 1 briefly presents Robert W. Fogel's and Oded Galor's latest contributions and justify why these two authors deserve to be treated together from the angle of biological reductionism. Section 2 delivers a definition of biological reductionism and explains why this is a relevant starting point in order to question Fogel's and Galor's assumptions. Section 3 puts the biological hypothesis of these two economists under closer scrutiny. In particular, it questions the biological mechanisms supporting Fogel's and Galor's theories and analyses whether they withstand examination, with regard to current knowledge in biology. Section 4 argues that, despite their similarities, Fogel's physiological reductionism must be distinguished from Galor's genetic reductionism, for their weaknesses are not of the same nature: while the limits of the biological mechanisms in Fogel's work stem from too many approximations, Galor's assumptions are biologically inaccurate. Then, section 5 discusses some of the outcomes of our methodological critique of Fogel's and Galor's approaches and provides guidelines for a renewed approach to evolutionary cliometrics of economic growth. Last section concludes.
Registred web users only can download this paper - Go back
Please note that files available for download have not been checked for viruses. These files have been submitted by authors of the conference to this web site. Conference organisers can't accept any responsibility for damages caused to users by downloading such files.