interesse over i den mere heterodokse del af den 0konomisk teoretiske verden,
hvor en forskellighed i opfattelsen af, hvad der dels er den bedst egnede meto-
dologi dels det relevante 0konomiske problem at studere, stadigvæk er accepte-
ret. Eller med Blaug (2001:147): Ifyou are philosophically inclined - an intel-
lectual rather than a technocrat - but are attracted to economics because of its
policy relevance or the belief that society rests essentially on economic founda-
tions, you may well find yourself drifting towards history of economic thought
... history of economic thought is a haven for heterodoxy, a heterodoxy which
no doubt has many sources but at its foundation takes its departure ... from a
certain type of mind, a certain congenial style of thinking.
Og pa sin vis bygger da ogsâ enhver nutidig teori pâ fortidens teoretiske erken-
delse. Og er den 0konomiske erkendelse, som flere vil argumentere, path-
dependent , mâ dette pâ afg0rende vis kendetegne den 0konomiske fagdisciplin.
En viden om det 0konomiske system og hvordan vi mener, at dette fungerer, er
derfor ikke en nyopdaget viden, men en viden som bygger pâ the sum of all
discoveries, insights andfalse starts in the past, Blaug (2001:156).
Som en naturlig konsekvens heraf b0r en teorihistorisk belysning derfor, mener
Blaug, f0lge et historisk snarere end et rationalt konstruktionsprincip i sin op-
bygning. Fors0ger man at se et givet 0konomisk teoretisk bidrag i den rette hi-
storiske kontekst, fâr man dels en bedre forstâelse for bidragets fortræffelighe-
history of thought is regarded as slightly depraved entertainment . so that one became a fully-
fledged, chartered Ph.D. economist without ever reading anything that was published more
than ten years ago . leads to the development of slick technicians who know how to use com-
puters, run massive correlations and regressions but who do not really know which side of
anybody’s bread is buttered, who are incredibly ignorant of economic institutions, who have no
sense at all of the blood, sweat and tears that have gone into the making of economics and very
little sense of any reality which lies beyond their data ”. Derudover medf0rer denne approach, at
0konomernes ” main preoccupation consists of analyzing data ” og “ leads to a rejection of any
information which cannot easily be fitted onto punched cards ”. Alt i alt betyder dette, at 0ko-
nomerne, if0lge Boulding, ofte kommer til at arbejde med ” an endless modification of variables
and equations in regions of strongly diminishing returns in the knowledge function, and still
sharper diminishing returns in the significance function”, pp. 232-33. Jf. ogsâ Samuelson
(1962:5), der sin egen anvendelse af formalisme til trods ogsâ har 0je for nogle af formalismens
svagheder, idet han pâpeger: ”if economists spend more and more of their time on highly tech-
nical mathematics and statistics, they must not be surprised if the intelligent man of affairs
comes to ignore this part of their activities”.
11