Edward P. Lazear, a leading neoclassical economist specializing in labor economics, has recently argued that economic imperialism is successfully colonizing other social sciences as a result of its own scientific status. His account, however, leaves several lacunae, including an explanation for the depth, variety, and timing of economic imperialism. These issues are addressed by emphasizing the importance of recent developments in micro-foundations in rendering economics more palatable to other social sciences that are themselves retreating from the extremes of influence of postmodernism and, like economics, neoliberalism. Further, once questioning the claims of economics as the only rigorous science, and recognizing the understandable antipathies to it by other disciplines, then the latter's interest in renewing contact with the economic is liable to see debate emerge over how to analyze the economy. In this, radical political economy and heterodox economics can play a part, even though they have been dismissed by mainstream economics itself.
Becker, G. (1990). In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Economics and sociology, redefining their boundaries: Conversations with economists and sociologists (pp. 27-46). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
2.
Becker, G. (1996). Accounting for tastes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
3.
Bernstein, M. (1999). Economic knowledge, professional authority, and the state: The case of American economics during and after World War II. In R. Garnett (Ed.), What do economists know? New economics of knowledge (pp. 103-123). London: Routledge.
4.
Blaug, M. (1980). The methodology of economics: Or how economists explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Blaug, M. (1998). Disturbing currents in modem economics. Challenge, 41(3), 11-34.
6.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2000). Walrasian economics in retrospect. Quarterly Journal of Economics.
7.
Bowden, S., & Offer, A. (1994). Household appliances and the use of time: The United States and Britain since the 1920s. Economic History Review, XLVII(4), 725-748.
8.
Bowden, S., & Offer, A. (1996). The technological revolution that never was: Gender, class, and the diffusion of household appliances in interwar England. In V. de Grazia & E. Furlough (Eds.), The sex of things: Gender and consumption in historical perspective (pp. 244-274). London: University of California Press.
9.
Bowden, S., & Offer, A. (1999). Household appliances and systems of provision: A reply. Economic History Review, LII(3), 563-567.
10.
Boylan, T., & O'Gorman, P. (1995). Beyond rhetoric and realism in economics: Towards a reformulation of economic methodology. London: Routledge.
11.
Carrier, J., & Miller, D. (1998). Virtualism: The new political economy. London: Berg.
12.
Coats, A. (1996). The post-1945 internationalization of economics. History of Political Economy, 28-28.
13.
Connell, R. (1997). Why is classical theory classical?American Journal of Sociology, 102(6), 1511-1557.
14.
Cornwall, R. (1997). Deconstructing silence: the queer political economy of the social allocation of desire. Review of Radical Political Economics, 29(1), 1-130.
15.
de Grazia, V., & Furlough, E. (1996). The sex of things: Gender and consumption in historical perspective. London: University of California Press.
16.
Economist (1998). New economists: Journey beyond the stars. The Economist, 143-146.
17.
Falk, P., & Campbell, C. (1997). The shopping experience. London: Sage.
18.
Fine, B. (1982). Theories of the capitalist economy. London: Edward Arnold.
19.
Fine, B. (1997a). The new revolution in economics. Capital and Class, 61, 143-148.
20.
Fine, B. (1997). Entitlement failure?Development and Change, 28(4), 617-647.
21.
Fine, B. (1998a). Labor market theory: A constructive reassessment. London: Routledge.
22.
Fine, B. (1998b). The triumph of economics: Or rationality can be dangerous to your reasoning. In J. Carrier & D. Miller (Eds.), Virtualism: The new political economy (pp. 49-73). London: Berg.
23.
Fine, B. (1999a). From Becker to Bourdieu: Economics confronts the social sciences. International Papers in Political Economy, 5(3), 1-43.
24.
Fine, B. (1999b). A question of economics: Is it colonising the social sciences?Economy and Society, 28(3), 403-425.
25.
Fine, B. (1999c). Household appliances and the use of time: The United States and Britain since the 1920s: A comment. Economic History Review, LII(3), 552-562.
26.
Fine, B. (1999d). The developmental state is dead: Long live social capital?Development and Change, 30(1), 1-19.
27.
Fine, B. (2000a). Endogenous growth theory: A critical assessment. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24(2), 245-265, a shortened and amended version of identically titled SOAS Working Paper no. 80, February 1998.
28.
Fine, B. (2000b). New and improved: Economics' contribution to business history. SOAS Working Paper in Economics no. 93.
29.
Fine, B. (2000c). Economics imperialism and intellectual progress: The present as history of economic thought?History of Economics Review, 32, 10-36.
30.
Fine, B. (2000d). Whither the welfare state: Public versus private consumption? SOAS Working Paper in Economics no. 92.
31.
Fine, B. (2000e). Consumption for historians: An economist's gaze. SOAS Working Paper in Economics no. 90.
32.
Fine, B. (2001a). Social capital versus social theory: Political economy and social sciences at the turn of the millennium. London: Routledge.
33.
Fine, B. (2001b). Neither Washington nor post-Washington consensus: An introduction. In B. Fine, C. Lapavitsas, & J. Pincus (Eds.), Neither Washington nor post-Washington consensus: Challenging development policy in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
34.
Fine, B. (2001c). Addressing the critical and the real in critical realism. In P. Lewis (Ed.), Transforming economics: Perspectives on the critical realist project. London: Routledge.
35.
Fine, B. (2001d). Economic imperialism as Kuhnian revolution. International Paper in Political Economy, 8(2), 1-58.
36.
Fine, B., Heasman, M., & Wright, J. (1996). Consumption in the age of affluence: The world of food. London: Routledge.
37.
Fine, B., & Lapavitsas, C. (2000). Markets and money in social theory: What role for economics?Economics and Society, 29(3), 357-382.
38.
Fine, B., Lapavitsas, C., & Pincus, J (Eds.). (2001). Neither Washington nor post-Washington consensus: Challenging development policy in the 21st century. London: Routledge.
39.
Fine, B., & Leopold, E. (1993). The world of consumption. London: Routledge, Second revised edition, 2002.
40.
Fine, B., & Milonakis, D. (2001). From new to newest: The economic history of Douglass North. Mimeo.
41.
Gabriel, Y., & Lang, T. (1995). The unmanageable consumer: Contemporary consumption and its fragmentation. London: Sage.
42.
Gutting, G. (1980). Paradigms and revolutions: Applications and appraisals of Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.
43.
Hodgson, G., & Rothman, H. (1999). The editors and authors of economics journals: A case of institutional oligopoly?Economic Journal, 109(453), F165-F186.
44.
Holbrook, M. (1995). Consumer research: Introspective essays on the study of consumption. London: Sage.
45.
King, J. (2000). Has there been progress in post-Keynesian economics? Paper to the conference of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought (ESHET), Graz, February, to appear in J. King. The history of post-Keynesian economics, 1936-2000. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
46.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press, second edition with postscript, original of 1962.
47.
Lamoreaux, N. (1998). Economic history and the cliometric revolution. In A. Molho & G. Wood (Eds.), Imagined histories: American historians interpret the past (pp. 59-84). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
48.
Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.
49.
Lazear, E. (1995). Personnel economics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
50.
Lazear, E. (1998). Personnel economics for managers. New York: Wiley.
51.
Lazear, E. (1999a). Personnel economics: Past lessons and future directions. Journal of Labor Economics, 17(2), 199-236.
52.
Lazear, E. (1999b). Culture and language. Journal of Political Economy, 107, S95-S126, previously National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 5249, 1995.
53.
Lazear, E. (2000a). Economic imperialism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(1), 99-146, previously National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper no. 7300, 1999.
54.
Lazear, E. (2000b). The power of incentives. American Economic Review, 90(2), 410-414.
55.
Lee, F., & Harley, S. (1998). Peer review, the research assessment exercise and the demise of non-mainstream economics. Capital and Class, 66, 23-51.
56.
McCloskey, D. (1986). The rhetoric of economics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
57.
Miller, D. (1995). Acknowledging consumption. London: Routledge.
58.
Offer, A. (1997). Between the gift and the market: The economy of regard. Economic History Review, L(3), 450-476.
59.
Olson, M., & Kahkonen, S. (2000). Introduction: The broader view. In M. Olson & S. Kahkonen (Eds.), A not-so-dismal science: A broader view of economies and societies (pp. 1-36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
Perelman, M. (2000). The invention of capitalism: Classical political economy and the secret history of primitive accumulation. Durham: Duke University Press.
61.
Slater, D. (2000). Capturing markets from the economists. Paper for Cultural Economics Conference, Open University, UK.
62.
Spencer, D. (1998). Economic analysis and the theory of production: A critical appraisal. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds.
63.
Stigler, G. (1984). Economics: The imperial science. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 86(3), 301-313.
64.
Stiglitz, J. (1994). Whither socialism?Cambridge: MIT Press.
65.
Stiglitz, J. (1998). More instruments and broader goals: Moving toward the post-Washington consensus. The 1998 WIDER Annual Lecture, January 7th, Helsinki.
66.
Swedberg, R. (1990a). Introduction. In R. Swedberg (Ed.), Economics and sociology, redefining their boundaries: Conversations with economists and sociologists (pp. 3-26). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
67.
Swedberg, R. (1990b). Economics and sociology, redefining their boundaries: Conversations with economists and sociologists. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
68.
Thompson, G. (1997). Where goes economics and the economies?Economy and Society, 26(4), 599-610.
69.
Thompson, G. (1999). How far should we be afraid of conventional economics? A response to Ben Fine. Economy and Society, 28(3), 426-433.
70.
Velthuis, O. (1999). The changing relationship between economic sociology and institutional economics: From Talcott Parsons to Mark Granovetter. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58(4), 629-649.
71.
Zelizer, V. (2000). Fine-tuning the Zelizer view. Economy and Society, 29(3), 383-389.
