Search

Based on the foundations that characterize fully constituted sciences, the article questions the scientific status of economics and discusses why various paradigms coexist within it, whose theoretical and methodological foundations conflict. The first part reviews the cycles of the predominant theoretical currents and analyzes the scientific rigor of the main paradigms; in particular, it examines the inconsistencies and ambiguities of the neoclassical paradigm, which, despite being currently assumed to be dominant, is far from satisfying the basic demands of scientific work. In the second part, the confluence of the different theoretical bodies is discussed, and the class, political, and ideological component of each one is contrasted. To meet the demands imposed by the advancement of economics as a scientific discipline, it must be assumed that economic theories are not politically neutral; that, beyond the preaching of pseudo-neutrality that usually masks apologetic desires, it is necessary to recognize the close relationship that exists between class interests, objectivity, and scientific work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The essay describes the impact of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (eclac) of Prebisch and company, in economic studies in the region, which were very dominated by the neoclassical approach. Then, it points out that the program of transformations that was deduced from the eclac ideology failed due to the quasi-disappearance of those who should have been its driving social agents (classes). It summarizes the impact of neoliberalism: high exploitation, high waste, and stagnation. And it examines the contributions of the new eclac, those that recover the critical edge and relevance of the classic eclac. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]