As ideologias da economia positiva: tecnocracia, laissez-faire e as tensões dos argumentos metodológicos de Friedman
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-416145342fmrPalavras-chave:
Friedman. Neoliberalismo, Metodologia, Tecnocracia, Laissez-faireResumo
O objetivo deste artigo é abordar algumas conexões entre o ensaio clássico de metodologia de Milton Friedman e a ascensão do pensamento neoliberal. Nesse sentido, reconstrói-se brevemente os argumentos metodológicos de Friedman e se reinterpreta o debate acerca deles. A ênfase recai sobre as tensões entre instrumentalismo e realismo ou pragmatismo, e entre empiricismo e a defesa da teoria dos preços de Chicago. Tais tensões são, então, relacionadas com uma tensão que é inerente ao neoliberalismo, entre tecnocracia e laissez-faire. O argumento apresentado pretende contribuir para preencher a lacuna entre a literatura recente sobre o neoliberalismo e aquela mais antiga sobre o ensaio de metodologia de Friedman.
Downloads
Referências
Alchian, A. “Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 58 (3), June, 1950, pp. 211-221.
Becker, G. “Irrational behavior and economic theory,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 70 (1),
February, 1962, pp. 1-13.
Blaug, M. “The debate over F53 after fifty years.” In: Mäki, Uskali (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics: reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 349-354.
Boland, L. “A critique of Friedman’s critics,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 17 (2), June, 1979, pp. 503-522.
Boland, L. The Foundations of Economic Method. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1982.
Boland, L. Critical Economic Methodology: a personal odyssey. New York: Routledge, 1997.
Burgin, A. The Great Persuasion: reinventing free markets since the Depression. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 2012.
Caldwell, B. “A critique of Friedman’s methodological instrumentalism,” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 47 (2), October, 1980, pp. 366-374.
Cherrier, B. “The lucky consistency of Milton Friedman’s science and politics, 1933-1963.” In: Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; Stapleford, Thomas (eds.). Building Chicago Economics: new perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics department. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 335-367.
Duménil, G.; Lévy, D. Capital Resurgent: roots of the neoliberal revolution. Translated by Derek Jeffers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000/2004.
Fabricant, S. “Toward a firmer basis of economic policy: the founding of the National Bureau of Economic Research,” available at: http://www.nber.org/nberhistory/sfabricantrev.pdf, 1984.
Fogel, R. “Simon S. Kuznets, 1901-1985,” Biographical Memoirs, Vol. 79, 2001, pp. 203-230.
Fourcade, M. Economists and Societies: discipline and profession in the United States, Britain, and France, 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Fourcade-Gourinchas, M.; Babb, S. “The rebirth of the liberal creed: paths to neoliberalism in four countries,” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 108 (3), 2002, pp. 533-579.
Frazer, W.; Boland, L. “An essay on the foundations of Friedman’s methodology,” American Economic Review, Vol. 73 (1), 1983, pp. 129-144.
Friedman, M. “Discussion,” American Economic Review, Vol. 39 (3), 1949, pp. 196-199.
Friedman, M. “The Marshallian demand curve.” In: Friedman, Milton. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949/1953, pp. 47-99.
Friedman, M. “The methodology of positive economics.” In: Friedman, Milton. Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953, pp. 3-43.
Habermas, J. “Technology and science as ‘ideology’.” In: Habermas, Jürgen. Toward a Rational Society: student protest, science, and politics. Trans. Jeremy Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968/1970, pp. 81-122.
Hall, R.; Hitch, C. “Price theory and business behavior.” Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 2, 1939, pp. 12-45.
Hammond, J. D. “An interview with Milton Friedman on methodology.” In: Caldwell, Bruce (ed.). The Philosophy and Methodology of Economics. Vol. 1. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1993, pp. 216-238.
Hammond, J. D. “Friedman’s methodology essay in context.” Prepared for “Milton Friedman’s essay at 50,” available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=908251, 2004.
Hammond, J. D. “More fiber than thread? Evidence on the Mirowski-Hands yarn,” History of Political Economy, Vol. 38 (Supplement), 2006, pp. 130-152.
Hammond, J. D. “Early drafts of Friedman’s methodology essay.” In: Mäki, Uskali (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics: reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 68-89.
Hands, D. W. Reflection without Rules: economic methodology and contemporary science theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Harvey, D. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Hirsch, A.; De Marchi, N. Milton Friedman: economics in theory and practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990.
Hoover, K. “Methodology: a comment on Frazer and Boland, II,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 74 (4), September, 1984, pp. 789-792.
Jones, D. S. Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the birth of neoliberal politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012.
Krippner, G. “The making of US monetary policy: central bank transparency and the neoliberal dilemma,” Theory and Society, Vol. 36 (6), 2007, pp. 477-513.
Lakatos, I. “History of science and its rational reconstructions,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1970, 1970, pp. 91-136.
Madra, Y.; Adaman, F. “Neoliberal reason and its forms: de-politicisation through economization,”
Antipode, Vol. 46 (3), 2014, pp. 691-716.
Maier, C. “The politics of productivity: foundations of American international economic policy after World War II,” International Organization, Vol. 31 (4), Fall, 1977, pp. 607-633.
Mäki, U. “Reading the methodological essay in the twentieth-century economics: map of multiple perspectives.” In: Mäki, Uskali (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics: reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 47-67.
Marschak, J. “A discussion on methods in economics,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 49 (3), June, 1941, pp. 441-448.
Medema, S. “Chicago price theory and Chicago law and economics: a tale of two transitions.” In: Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; Stapleford, Thomas (eds.). Building Chicago Economics:
new perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics department. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 151-179.
Mirowski, P. “On the origins (at Chicago) of some species of neoliberal evolutionary economics.” In: Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; Stapleford, Thomas (eds.). Building Chicago Economics: new perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics department. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 237-275.
Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; Stapleford, Thomas (eds.). “How did the neoliberals pull it off?” Public Books, available at http://www.publicbooks.org/
nonfiction/how-did-the-neoliberals-pull-it-off , 2013.
Mirowski, P.; Plehwe, D. (eds.) The Road from Mont Pèlerin: the making of the neoliberal thought collective. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Morgan, M. S. “The formation of ‘Modern’ Economics: engineering and ideology,” Working Paper, n. 62/01, London School of Economics, May, 2001.
Morgan, M.; Rutherford, M. “American economics: the character of the transformation,” History of Political Economy, Vol. 30 (Supplement), 1998, pp. 1-26.
Simon, H. “Rational decision making in business organizations,” The American Economic Review, Vol. 69 (4), 1979, pp. 493-513.
Stapleford, T. “Positive economics for democratic policy: Milton Friedman, institutionalism, and the science of history.” In: Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; Stapleford, Thomas (eds.). Building Chicago Economics: new perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics department. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 3-35.
Stigler, S. “Some correspondence on methodology between Milton Friedman and Edwin B. Wilson: November-December 1946,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 32 (3), 1994, pp. 1197-1203.
Teira, D. “Milton Friedman, the statistical methodologist,” History of Political Economy, Vol. 39 (3), Fall, 2007, pp. 511-527.
Teira Serrano, D.; Zamora Bonilla, J. “The politics of positivism: disinterested predictions from interested agents.” In: Mäki, Uskali (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics: reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 189-213.
Van Horn, R.; Mirowski, P. “The rise of the Chicago school of economics and the birth of neoliberalism.” In: Mirowski, Philip; Plehwe, Dieter (eds.). The Road from Mont Pèlerin: the making of the neoliberal thought collective. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009, pp. 139-178.
Van Horn, R.; Mirowski, P.; Stapleford, T. (eds.). Building Chicago Economics: new perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics department. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011a.
Van Horn, R.; Mirowski, P.; Stapleford, T. (eds.). “Blueprints.” In: Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; Stapleford, Thomas (eds.). Building Chicago Economics: new perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics
department. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011b, pp. xv-xxiv.
Vromen, J. “Friedman’s selection argument revisited.” In: Mäki, Uskali (Ed.). The Methodology of Positive Economics: reflections on the Milton Friedman legacy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 257-284.
Vromen, J. “Allusions to evolution: edifying evolutionary biology rather than economic theory.” In: Van Horn, Robert; Mirowski, Philip; Stapleford, Thomas (eds.). Building Chicago Economics: new perspectives on the history of America’s most powerful economics department. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, pp. 208-236.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2015 Fernando Monteiro Rugitsky
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
A submissão de artigo autoriza sua publicação e implica o compromisso de que o mesmo material não esteja sendo submetido a outro periódico.
A revista não paga direitos autorais aos autores dos artigos publicados.
O detentor dos direitos autorais da revista é o Departamento de Economia da Faculdade de Economia, Administração, Contabilidade e Atuária da Universidade de São Paulo.
