資源描述：
《On the Methodology of Positive Economics》由會(huì)員上傳分享，免費(fèi)在線閱讀，更多相關(guān)內(nèi)容在行業(yè)資料-天天文庫。
1、MiltonFriedman"TheMethodologyofPositiveEconomics"InEssaysInPositiveEconomics(Chicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress,1966),pp.3-16,30-43.TheMethodologyofPositiveEconomics*InhisadmirablebookonTheScopeandMethodofPoliticalEconomy,JohnNevilleKeynesdistinguishesamong"apositivesc
2、ience...abodyofsystematizedknowledgeconcerningwhatis;anormativeorregulativescience...abodyofsystematizedknowledgediscussingcriteriaofwhatoughttobe...;anart...asystemofrulesfortheattainmentofagivenend";commentsthat"confusionbetweenthemiscommonandhasbeenthesourceo
3、fmanymischievouserrors";andurgestheimportanceof"recognizinga1distinctpositivescienceofpoliticaleconomy."Thispaperisconcernedprimarilywithcertainmethodologicalproblemsthatariseinconstructingthe"distinctpositivescience"Keynescalledfor-inparticular,theproblemhowtod
4、ecidewhetherasuggestedhypothesisortheoryshouldbetentativelyacceptedaspartofthe"bodyofsystematizedknowledgeconcerningwhatis."ButtheconfusionKeyneslamentsisstillsorifeandsomuchofahindrancetotherecognitionthateconomicscanbe,andinpartis,apositivesciencethatitseemswe
5、lltoprefacethemainbodyofthepaperwithafewremarksabouttherelation,betweenpositiveandnormativeeconomics.1.THERELATIONBETWEENPOSITIVEANDNORMATIVEECONOMICSConfusionbetweenpositiveandnormativeeconomicsistosomeextentinevitable.Thesubjectmatterofeconomicsisregardedbyalm
6、osteveryoneasvitallyimportanttohimselfandwithintherangeofhisownexperienceandcompetence;itis*Ihaveincorporatedbodilyinthisarticlewithoutspecialreferencemostofmybrief"Comment"inASurveyofContemporaryEconomics,Vol.II(B.F.Haley,ed.)(Chicago:RichardD.Irwin,Inc.,1952),
7、pp.455-57.IamindebtedtoDorothyS.Brady,ArthurF.Burns,andGeorgeJ.Stiglerforhelpfulcommentsandcriticism.1.(London:Macmillan4Co.,1891),pp.34-35and46.34thesourceofcontinuousandextensivecontroversyandtheoccasionforfrequentlegislation.Self-proclaimed"experts"speakwithm
8、anyvoicesandcanhardlyallberegardedasdisinterested;inanyevent,onquestionsthatmattersomuch,"expert"opinioncouldhardlybeacceptedsolelyonfaithevenifthe"experts"werenearly
