厘清后危机时代经济学的“实证”——基于方法论演变的比较分析  

On Clarifying the Positive Method of Economics of Post Crisis Era

作　　者：胡明[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学商学院,邮政编码102249

出　　处：《经济研究》2015年第5期147-161,共15页Economic Research Journal

基　　金：2011年教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目"增长主义发展模式及其转变研究"课题(项目批准号:11YJA790047)资助

摘　　要：本文通过分析不同方法论的辩护策略,探讨了后危机时代主流的新古典经济学最适宜的实证方法论。作者认为,无论是孔德的实证主义、逻辑实证主义,还是当前主流的逻辑经验主义和证伪主义均无法有效地为主流经济学的理论体系提供辩护。相比较,诞生于新古基经济学初期的穆勒传统的凯恩斯实证方法,不仅仍能为当前主流的经济学原理提供辩护,而且也能克服当前主流经济学方法论在不充分决定性和理论负荷等方面的不足,并能在区分抽象研究与具体研究的条件下与主流方法论相融合。因此,穆勒传统的凯恩斯实证仍是当前新古典经济学可行的辩护策略。This paper aims to clarify the best methodology for the mainstream economics of post crisis era, based on the comparative analysis of methodological evolution. The author argues that, comtean positivism, logical positivism, the current mainstream of logic empiricism and falsificationism can＇t provide convincing defense for the theoretical system of mainstream economics. In comparison, Keynesian positive method based on Millian tradition born in the early of new classical economics, not only can still provide the best defense for the mainstream economics, but also can overcome some shortcomings of the current mainstream economics methodology, and can reconcile with the latter by distinguishing specific research and abstract research. Therefore, Keynesian positive method based on Millian tradition is still a feasible guidance for current economics research.

关 键 词：实证经济学 经济学方法论 穆勒传统 凯恩斯实证 实证主义 

分 类 号：F091.347[经济管理—政治经济学]