English Historical School and Methodological Controversy

英国历史学派与方法论争议

• 批准号: 18530143
• 负责人: SASAKI Kensuke
• 金额: $ 1.6万
• 依托单位: Hokkaido University
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 2006
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 2006 至 2007
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-18530143/
• 关键词: methodology of economics; historical school of economics

It was W.J. Ashley that recapitulated the Methodenstreit from the standpoint of historical school. The essentials of his recapitulation were the following.First, the controversy was caused because the economists in both camps had different aptitudes and interests. It is natural that a person should feel that the task towards which he is drawn is the most urgent and beneficent of all tasks.Second, the plan trying to replace one method with the other was eventually unsuccessful. The extremists in historical economists had hoped that they would substitute historical method for abstract, deductive method. We need to generalize the historical facts in order to get real premises of economic theory. And then we may proceed to deductive inference. But their insistence was criticized even by historical economists admitting the merit of economic theory as well as by theoretic economists.Third, the controversy, however, influenced conceptions of orthodox economists. That is, the orthodox economists became to share such viewpoints of historical economists as the relativity of doctrine, the unity of social phenomena and the plurality of economic action.Fourth, the argument enhanced the theoretical economics in Germany and the historical economics in Britain, which were underrated in each country up to that time.Fifth, historical economists found out their own subject through the controversy. They were investigating economic history both in Germany and Britain. It was on this point that Ashley gave importance in his recapitulation of the Methodenstreit.

正是W. J.阿什利从历史学派的观点概括了卫理公会。他概括的要点如下：第一，引起争论是因为两大阵营的经济学家有不同的才能和兴趣。一个人自然会感到他所从事的工作是所有工作中最紧迫和最有益的。第二，试图用一种方法取代另一种方法的计划最终没有成功。历史经济学家中的极端主义者曾希望用历史方法代替抽象的演绎方法。为了得到经济理论的真实的前提，我们需要对历史事实进行概括。然后我们可以进行演绎推理。但他们的坚持甚至受到了承认经济理论价值的历史经济学家和理论经济学家的批评。第三，这场争论影响了正统经济学家的观念。第四，这场争论使当时各国都不重视的德国理论经济学和英国历史经济学得到了加强;第五，历史经济学家在这场争论中找到了自己的研究对象。他们在研究德国和英国的经济史。阿什利在他的《卫理公会法典》的重述中，正是在这一点上给予了重视。