excerpted from a debate about the future of economics amongst the social sciences:
i do give sociology credit, in that they seeem equally open to all ideas. at least woody powell is. the papers we read for his classes happily cite econ papers as readily as anthropology.
but they have yet to come up with the common framework. the common language that unites them that allows progress to be made.
i guess, at least from a stanford perspective, there's the big push for institutional theory, with micro-foundations in social psychology, but that's hardly universal, and will unlikley get there yet.
plus psychology is a rather muddled foundation, with its own fads and favorite theories that ebb and flow.
sociologists are an extension of what thinkers have been doing since plato and before. cataloguing phenomenon.
i do sorta think that modern economics represents a kuhnian paradigm shift, a new science, that will not easily be displaced.
though our methodology based on logic and math has faults of its own. I often say that modern economics is the true heir or Marxism, though a true marxist once retorted that modern economics is Marxism divorced from morality. and math and logic and objectivity is fine and good, but humans are creatures of passion, spirituality, and morality, and it is important not to forget that.