Abstract Economics has long been the ‘dismal science’. The crisis in classical political economy at the end of the nineteenth century produced radically differing intellectual responses: Marx’s reconstitution of value theory on the basis of his dialectical method, the marginalists’ development of subjective value theory, and the historical school’s advocacy of inductive and historical reasoning. It is against this background that economics was established as a discrete academic discipline, consciously modelling itself on maths and physics and developing its focus on theorising exchange. This entailed extraordinary reductionism, with humans regarded as rational, self-interested actors, and class, society, history and ‘the social’ being excised from economic analysis. On the basis of this narrowing of its concerns, particularly from the 1980s onwards, economics has sought to expand its sphere of influence through a form of imperialism which seeks to apply mainstream economic approaches to other social sciences and sees economics as ‘the universal grammar of social science’. The implications of this shift are discussed in Ben Fine and Dimitris Milonakis’s two volumes, where they analyse the fate of the social, the political and the historical in economic thought, and assess the future for an inter-disciplinary critique of economic reason.
1. BeckerGary S.The Economic Approach to Human Behaviour1976ChicagoChicago University Press
14. LeeFred "‘The Research Assessment Exercise, the State and the Dominance of Mainstream Economics in British Universities’" Cambridge Journal of Economics2007 Vol 31 2309325 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/bel021
15. LouçãFranciscoTurbulence in Economics: An Evolutionary Appraisal of Cycles and Complexity in Historical Processes1997CheltenhamEdward Elgar
16. MarxKarlTheories of Surplus-Value1863available at: < >
17. MilonakisDimitris , FineBenFrom Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and the Historical in the Evolution of Economic Theory2009LondonRoutledge
18. TabbWilliam K.Reconstructing Political Economy: The Great Divide in Economic Thought1999LondonRoutledge
19. FN1 1. Carlyle 1849.
20. FN2 2. The lengthiest discussion of which is contained in Marx 1863. See also King 1979.
21. FN3 3. Fullbrook (ed.) 2003; Lee 2007.
22. FN4 4. For a different account, see Hodgson 2011.
23. FN5 5. Milonakis and Fine 2009, p. 95.
24. FN6 6. Louçã 1997.
25. FN7 7. Blaug 2003.
26. FN8 8. Fine and Milonakis 2009; Milonakis and Fine 2009. See also Fine and Milonakis 2011.
27. FN9 9. See the Preface to Fine and Milonakis 2009.
28. FN10 10. Interestingly, as recognised by Coase 1978.
29. FN11 11. Becker 1976.
30. FN12 12. Fine and Milonakis 2009, p. 14.
31. FN13 13. Ibid.
32. FN14 14. There are other accounts of this sorry story, or at least of its constituent parts. For example, see Clarke 1982; Davis 2003; Fullbrook (ed.) 2003; Hodgson 2001; Tabb 1999.
33. FN15 15. In Milonakis and Fine 2009 and Fine and Milonakis 2009 respectively.