Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

MAURIZIO CASERTAintroducing random events, explanation is totally lost. All thisgoes to show that the question of change should be approached ina different way.The following suggestion of Loasby’s might be a useful startingpoint:The distinction between incremental and discontinuouschange is an imposed distinction. All change involves at leastone discontinuity; no change obliterates the past. Theinvention of such categories as revolutionary and normalscience, or the hard core and protective belt of a researchprogramme, like the familiar distinction between short-andlong-run effects (…) is part of the process through which wetry to make sense of the world by imposing manageablecategories upon it. If driven hard, all such distinctions breakdown.(Loasby 1991:19)Instead of portraying change as an unexpected event, thusstressing discontinuity, or as a fully known development, implyingstrict continuity, it might be possible to think of change as anunderlying process whose developments are, as yet, unknown.Such a process may not impinge on the established relations thatare being studied, but may produce some consequences at a laterdate. Here novelty is preserved, but a line of development isidentified. When this is acknowledged in the establishment of a setof equilibrium relations, equilibrium by its very nature becomesprovisional.This argument could appear to be very easily countered by theremark that there is always something going on in the world that isbeyond our understanding. There is always something left out ofthe picture that is difficult to fit into it. When it becomes possibleto fit the new piece in, the picture will be enlarged. Thus, despitethe perception that there is more to the world than we can makeout, we should say no more than what our coherent model allowsus to say. In fact, this counter-argument can be questioned. Just asthe analyst perceives that there is more to the world than he or shecan make out, so there is no reason to rule out that the actors ofthe theoretical model entertain the very same perception. It will beargued below that it is through this line of reasoning that Loasby’sremarks can be supported and a different treatment of changesuggested.108