The Quarterly Journal of Economics and Institutionalism: an analysis of publications from 1886 to 2023
The study analyzes the articles by Thorstein Veblen and Wesley C. Mitchell, main names in institutionalism, and other texts that mention the school of thought, within The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, with the aim of highlighting the themes covered in the articles and identifying whether the discu...
| Autores: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2024 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
| Repositorio: | Textos de Economia (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/101316 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/economia/article/view/101316 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Institutionalism Neoclassicism Heterodoxy Orthodoxy Mainstream Institucionalismo Neoclassicismo Heterodoxia Ortodoxia |
| Sumario: | The study analyzes the articles by Thorstein Veblen and Wesley C. Mitchell, main names in institutionalism, and other texts that mention the school of thought, within The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, with the aim of highlighting the themes covered in the articles and identifying whether the discussions initiated by the authors were perpetuated, modified or disappeared over the decades. The hypothesis is that there was an institutionalist erasure linked to the historical intellectual dispute between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, with hegemony of the neoclassical method, representative in the orthodox and mainstream circles. The research method was mapping of the journal's articles, for quantitative and qualitative analysis. The text presents: (i) the articles found and the historical moments of institutionalism, (ii) analysis of the articles, the institutional discussion in relation to neoclassical economics and the clash between heterodoxy and orthodoxy and mainstream and (iii) the final considerations. In this, it is concluded that the newspaper failed to include all aspects of economic theory, which seems to be an extension of the history of dominant economic thought itself. |
|---|