The study examines four questions: 1. It moves from experience - from the spread of unfamiliarity - towards causes in search of an explanation for an absence of conformity arising from the world's now urgent economic difficulties and the technicist orthodoxy of today's economic theory. The dominant approach is one-sidedly axiomatic and follows exclusively the inherent rules of formalization, while resting or having rested on assumptions and means beyond which other disciplines (especially the natural sciences) have clearly advanced in recent decades. 2. It explores the question of how and why there came to be a methodological exclusiveness in the world's leading journals, which often squeezes out the specific subject of examination in theory and research. 3. It raises the question of whether the mutual effect of the failures of the past and the mainstream that opened up theory in directions previously avoided will produce over decades a change of paradigm in Kuhn's sense. The reply given here is negative. 4. Proposals are made for moderation and for better application of the findings of associated sciences and for a need for greater methodological multiplicity. Instead of relying on single arbitrarily chosen textbooks or schools, the argument follows the course of the Nobel laureates in determining the boundaries and achievements of this branch of science.
Financed by the National Centre for Research and Development under grant No. SP/I/1/77065/10 by the strategic scientific research and experimental development program:
SYNAT - “Interdisciplinary System for Interactive Scientific and Scientific-Technical Information”.