Insider apology for microeconomic theorising?

Area of Science:

• Economics
• Philosophy of Economics
• Economic Methodology

Background:

• Critiques the 'sociology of economics' framework proposed by Gilboa, Postlewaite, Samuelson, and Schmeidler (GPSS).
• Questions the centrality of microeconomic theory and core principles like maximization, constraint satisfaction, and equilibrium analysis in contemporary economics.
• Examines the evolving role of economic theories and models from descriptive/predictive tools to analytical/methodological exercises.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the descriptive adequacy of the GPSS 'sociology of economics' framework.
• To investigate whether current economic practice remains unified by traditional microeconomic principles.
• To re-evaluate the role and significance of idealized economic models in light of recent philosophical discussions.

Main Methods:

• Critical commentary and theoretical analysis of existing economic theories and methodologies.
• Engagement with the philosophical literature on economic modeling.
• Comparative analysis of the GPSS framework against current trends in economic research.

Main Results:

• Argues that contemporary economics is not as unified by maximization and equilibrium principles as GPSS suggest.
• Contends that GPSS's view of economic theories as flexible interpretive tools is an apologetic stance.
• Highlights a paradox where idealized models, often simplified, are gaining importance in economic discussions.

Conclusions:

• The GPSS framework may not accurately capture the current state and unifying principles of economics.
• Economic theories have shifted from descriptive roles towards analytical and methodological functions.
• Recent philosophical insights suggest that highly idealized economic models hold significant, perhaps underestimated, value.