B40 General
Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (2)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Banking Regulation (1)
- Citation Network Analysis (1)
- Discourse (1)
- Equilibrium Thinking (1)
- Formalism (1)
- Popper and Adorno’s debate (1)
- Systemic Risk (1)
- dialects (1)
- popperian’s method (1)
- positivism (1)
Karl Popper versus Theodor Adorno: Lessons from a historical confrontation. In 1961, during the Congress of the German Society of Sociology, two great theoretical references of the XX century faced in a historical debate about the logic of the social sciences. In addition to methodological issues strict sense, the confrontation became known as a debate between positivism and dialectic. The article first deals with the theoretical trajectories of Popper and Adorno and the relation of their theories with their political and ideological certainties. On one hand, the trajectory of the Popperian epistemology is examined, its contributions and vigorous attacks on Marx in what he called 'poverty of historicism" and false predictive Marxist world, and, on the other hand, the role of Adorno in the Frankfurt School, his criticism of totalitarianism and the defense of a critical emancipatory reason. The article also deals with the confrontation itself, the exposure of Popper's twenty-seven theses that culminate with the situation logic and the method of the economy as exemplary for the social sciences and Adorno's critical perspective of sociology and society as non-separable objects. In conclusion we show how the articulation of theory with the weltanschauung of each author helps to clarify the terms of the debate and how the confrontation contributed unequivocally to the dynamics of scientific progress and for the critical history of the ideas.
Understanding the shift from micro to macro-prudential thinking: a discursive network analysis
(2016)
While some economists argued for macro-prudential regulation pre-crisis, the macro-prudential approach and its emphasis on endogenously created systemic risk have only gained prominence post-crisis. Employing discourse and network analysis on samples of the most cited scholarly works on banking regulation as well as on systemic risk (60 sources each) from 1985 to 2014, we analyze the shift from micro to macro-prudential thinking in the shift to the post crisis period. Our analysis demonstrates that the predominance of formalism, particularly, partial equilibrium analysis along with the exclusion of historical and practitioners’ styles of reasoning from banking regulatory studies impeded economists from engaging seriously with the endogenous sources of systemic risk prior to the crisis. Post-crisis, these topics became important in this discourse, but the epistemological failures of banking regulatory studies pre-crisis were not sufficiently recognized. Recent attempts to conceptualize and price systemic risk as a negative externality point to the persistence of formalism and equilibrium thinking, with its attending dangers of incremental innovation due to epistemological barriers constrains theoretical progress, by excluding observed phenomena, which cannot yet be accommodated in mathematical models.