The Role of Constructs in the Analysis of Economic Thought

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Assistant Professor, Industrial Management and Entrepreneurship Department, Faculty of Human Sciences, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

10.22091/ise.2025.12755.1026

Abstract

Every imagination, meaning, concept, thought belief or theory can be broken down into more detailed epistemological units called constructs; intertwined epistemological units that, in a constructional network, create the meaning and content of a thought. Constructs find meaning only through connection with surrounding constructs. Therefore, whenever a construct is invoked, in fact, a network of constructs- with direct and indirect relations to other constructs- is invoked. This epistemological and methodological entry into the analysis of concepts, theories, and economic thoughts helps to explain how the verbal commonality of a word such as “market” or “justice” can lead to distinct interpretations, based on different constructual networks. Sometimes, constructs are validated—that is, theorists are sometimes compelled to create or set aside particular constructs in order to achieve coherence in their theory. For example, the construct of “utility” in utilitarian economics or the construct of the “invisible hand” in the works of Adam Smith, after entering different constructual networks, acquire new meanings and become the source of new theories. In addition, the criterion of truth for constructs is considered relative; because the acceptance of each construct is essentially the acceptance of a network of propositions and philosophical, historical, and subjective (inner) presuppositions, which makes possible various readings of reality. In fact, this constructual perspective denies any kind of objectivity or universality in the concepts employed in economic thought. The result is that the historical and context-sensitive analysis of constructs can not only prevent eclectic and abstract understanding of economic theories, but also play a fundamental role in understanding the longitudinal evolution of ideas and in the cross-sectional comparison of competing theories.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Allen, R. G. D., & Hicks, J. R. (1934). A reconsideration of the theory of value. Economica, 1(1934), 52–76.
Chalmers, A. F. (2015). What is this thing called science? An introduction to the philosophy of science (S. Zibakalam, Trans.). SAMT. (In Persian)
Eslamlooyan, K. (2004). Utility mechanics and self-interest: A reconsideration of Jevons’s doctrine of utility. Economic Research, 64, 1–28. (In Persian)
Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (T. J. Trenn & R. K. Merton, Eds. & Trans.). University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1935)
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)
Gerami, M. (2017). An introduction to intellectual and conceptual historiography. Imam Sadiq University Press. (In Persian)
Jevons, W. S. (1888). The theory of political economy (3rd ed.). Macmillan.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Psychology Press.
Leonard, R. (2010). Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the creation of game theory: From chess to social science, 1900–1960. Cambridge University Press.
Lovejoy, A. O. (2017). The great chain of being: A study of the history of an idea. Routledge.
Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game theory: Analysis of conflict. Harvard University Press.
Neumann, J. von, & Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior (60th ed.). Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1953)
Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.
Smith, A. (1976a). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (E. Cannan & G. J. Stigler, Eds.). University of Chicago Press.
Smith, A. (1976b). The theory of moral sentiments. Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. (1980). Essays on philosophical subjects (W. P. D. Wightman & J. C. Bryce, Eds.; Vol. 3). Liberty Fund. (Original work published 1795)
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell.
Zaribaf, M., & Nasakhian, A. (2013). Validity of economic institutions based on abstract models: A case study of market institutions. Research and Economic Policies, 21(67), 105–130. (In Persian)
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics