Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

346 Economics
18. This is one of the features that differentiates this publication from its predecessor,
published by the American Economic Association as A Survey of Contemporary
Economics (Vol. I- 1949,Vol.II- 1952).whichcontahedasurveydevoted tomethodological
problems by Richard Ruggles. It is also interesting to observe that, even
then, the critics blamed the author for having given a description of research techniques
rather than a survey of fundamental methodological problems. Domar
wrote: ‘This paper is concerned not with methodology as a part of the philosophy
of knowledge but rather a description of present day economic research‘; and M.
Friedman added that the ‘essay presents a thoughtful analysis of trees at the almost
inevitable cost of paying little attention to the forest’.
19. The well-known book by SCHUMPETER, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy must
be acknowledged as being the most mature. It influenced J. K. GALBRAITH in his
recent books, including The New Industrial State, London, 1967.
20. T. PARSONS and N. SMELSER, Economy and Society, p. 246. These authors are also
correct in criticizing the psychological premises of Keynes’ theory (known as
‘propensities’).
21. It must be repeated that our remarks refer to the macro-scale. But we stress the
rapid development of research in these countries and the growth of psycho-socioeconomic
literature dealing with various aspects of the enterprise and with consumer
behaviour. The recently-published three-volume collective work L’entreprise
et I’dconomie du XX‘ siPcle (Paris, 1967) seems to be representative of this type of
co-operation between economists, sociologists and psychologists - and of co-operation
between scientists of both socialist and capitalist countries.
22. T. KOOPMANS, ‘Measurement without Theory’, Review of Economics and Statistics,
August 1947.
23. L. ROBBINS, Essays ..., p. 16.
24. L. VON MISES, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, New Haven (Conn.), Yale
Univ. Press, 1949, p. 3.
25. W. KULA, Problerny i methody historii gospodarczej [Problems and Methods of
Economic History], Warsaw, 1963, p. 93.
26. Cf. ibid., p. 94.
27. The article by E. SLUCKI, published in Kiev in 1926 as ‘Ein Beitrag zur formalpraxeologischen
Grundlegung der Oekonomik’, is considered the first study on
praxiology. The first systematic exposition of praxiology is T. Kotarbinski’s book
already quoted, which was published in its Polish edition IO years ago. Recently
the term praxiology has been increasingly used in French literature (for details cf.
L. ARENILLA, ‘L’action et sa connaissance’, Cahiers de I‘lsea, December 1965). In
Poland there is a whole centre of praxiological thought led by T. Kotarbinski. This
centre has been publishing the periodical Materialy prakseologiczne (Praxiological
Notes) since 1962, recently renamed Prakseologia (Praxiology). Twenty odd volumes
already published testify to the activities of the centre. In several special
contributions the mutual relationships between praxiology and the other sciences
of man, especially between praxiology and economics, were defined. This problem
is discussed in the following: Chapters v and VI of Vol. I of of 0. LANGE’S PoliticalEconomy
(the title of Ch. v: ‘The Principle of Economic Rationality. Economics
and Praxiology’) ; 0. LANGE, ‘Znaczenie prakseologii dla ekonomii politycznej’
[The Significance of Praxiology to Political Economy], in: Maferialy prakseologiczne,
no. 20; T. KOTARBINSKI, ‘Praxiology and Economics’, in: On Political
Economy and Econometrics. Essays in Honour of Oskar Lunge, Warsaw, 1964. See
also a popular introduction to praxiology: A, KAUFMANN, The Science of Decision-
Making (trans. by R. Audley), London, 1968 (original French: L’homme d’action et
la science, Paris, 1968).
28. T. KOTARBINSKI, ‘Praxiology and Economics’, loc. cit., pp. 310-311.
29. This argumentation is borrowed from 0. LANGE’S ‘Znaczenie prakseologii dla
ekonomii politycznej’, op. cif., p. 24. A more precise analysis of the same problems
can be found in Chapter 11 of Vol. 11 of 0. LANGE’S Political Economy,