Frontiers in Business, Economics and Management 
ISSN: 2766-824X | Vol. 17, No. 2, 2024 

 

19 

Scientific Evolution of Analytical Methods in Western 
Economics 

Xiong Ge * 

School of Business, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai 201600, China 

* Corresponding author: Xiong Ge (Email: gx18792831662@163.com) 

 

Abstract: Through the review of Schumpeter's research ideas on the history of economic analysis, this paper defines the 
theories and methods in the historical evolution of scientific economics, as well as the ideological bias infiltrated into the 

"scientific model" of economics, and puts forward that in addition to the basic historical methods and comparative methods, the 

research methods of the history of science should also be fully used for reference. This paper also summarizes Schumpeter 's 

'influence' and 'prejudice' on Marx's ideology and makes a discussion. This paper makes a systematic analysis of Schumpeter's 

basic views on the relationship between economic science and ideology. 

Keywords: Economic analysis method, History of economic analysis, Scientism and Humanism. 

 

1. Introduction 

Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950) was a great 

economist and a great expert in the history of economics. 

From the publication of "History of Economic Theory and 

Methodology" in 1914 to the writing of the last nine years of 

his life, it can be said that "History of Economic Analysis" is 

a book he has spent his whole life writing, but it is still 

unfinished. In this classic work, he fully embodies his 

pioneering research idea of "the history of economic 

analysis." He equated the history of economic analysis with 

the history of economics, “It refers to the history of human 

mental efforts to understand economic phenomena. In other 

words, it is the history of analytical or scientific aspects in the 

history of economic thought [2].”  

When answering the question of “why do we study the 

history of economics,” Schumpeter believed that it is better to 

abandon outdated thinking methods than to stick to them 

indefinitely. However, if we only visit the house where the old 

things are placed and don 't stay too long, we will certainly 

gain something. These gains can be divided into four 

categories: in teaching, eliminating students “lack of direction 

and meaning” in learning current economics; get new 

inspiration from it; knowing the way of human thinking helps 

to extract practical or narrative logic; describe “the origin of 

scientific concepts”, To help in the various schools and 

differences in the current economics to identify and choose. 

After clarifying the purpose of the study of the history of 

economic analysis, Schumpeter further explained the scope 

and methods of the study of the history of economic analysis. 

Schumpeter 's "History of Economic Analysis" is the most 

extensive and detailed book on economics, especially on the 

evolution of economic analysis methods, and it is also the first 

book with profound and distinctive analysis and commentary. 

There are many works on the history of economic thought. 

The history of economic analysis is characterized by not only 

expounding the thoughts of economists, but also emphasizing 

the traceability of the history of analytical methods. 

2. Contents of the Study 

2.1. Scientific Economic Analysis 

2.1.1. What is scientific economic analysis 
Schumpeter believes that analysis is scientific thinking, 

which is different from speculative philosophical thinking. 

Philosophical thinking of speculation is purely theoretical and 

conceptual thinking based on logical deduction. It does not 

point to empirical research, that is, it does not seek or try to 

find empirical evidence to confirm or falsify. “When it comes 

to economics, I think the cloak of philosophy can also be 

removed: economic analysis is not at any time determined by 

the philosophical views that economists happen to hold, 

although it is often corrupted by political attitudes. 

Philosophy in any technical sense cannot affect economic 

analysis in essence, and has not affected this argument in 

essence. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize this because 

the opposite argument is one of the most important sources of 

hypocritical interpretation of the evolution of economic 

analysis. These hypocritical explanations are very attractive 

to many economic historians, who are often mainly interested 

in philosophy, so they pay too much attention to these aspects. 

These materials are filled in the literature, but it is not always 

easy to identify its essence-it is all pretentious and 

meaningless, but it can make the origin of scientific concepts 

disappear. The literal meaning of belief confession in 

methodology is meaningless except for philosophers... Any 

methodology that can be opposed is irrelevant if it can be 

abandoned without forcing us to abandon any analytical 

results associated with it... [2]”. However, the methodology 

should not be confined to philosophical speculation only, it is 

important to produce novel strategies, techniques or art. 

2.1.2. The Characteristics of Scientific Analysis 
Scientific analysis is characterized by: the processing of 

technology and tools is needed (science is refined common 

sense; science is knowledge processed by tools); Embodiment 

process (Scientific work is different from political work. In 

essence, it is self-exposed [1]); From the point of view of 

effect, analysis should make its theory exceed the common 

sense of ordinary people (In terms of the achieveme, one of 

the forms of this is to examine a simple fact from the 



 

20 

perspective of theoretical consciousness [1]). 

Schumpeter discussed the scientific method, that is, the 

rules of imagination and procedure. 

2.1.3. Modern scientific standards 
The standards of science are constantly evolving. At 

present, the generally accepted standards of science are 

mainly based on modern views, that is, “modern, or empirical, 

or empirical” science [3].  

Our standards are the result of more than six hundred years 

of development. This estimate only refers to Western 

civilization, but also takes into account the development of 

Greece, but only includes the stage of their entry into Western 

European scientific thought as cultural heritage since the 13th 

century, excluding the history of the development of Greek 

culture itself. As a milestone, we choose Thomas Aquinas 's 

Theological Encyclopedia, which excludes the revelation 

from the philosophical system, that is, all scientific 

revelations except supernatural theology (natural theology is 

a kind of philosophical system). This is the earliest and most 

important step taken by Europe in the criticism of 

methodology after the decline of the Greek-Roman world...[1] 

They have two distinct characteristics: they simplify the facts 

that we are required to accept according to scientific reasons 

into a relatively narrow category of facts that can be proved 

by observation or experiment; they also sum up a set of 

methods that can be allowed as 'the method of logical 

reasoning from facts that can be proved' [2].  

2.2. The Development of Scientific Economic 
Analysis 

2.2.1. Ancient greece 
In the pre-scientific era, it was popular economics, pre-

analytical economics. Its content is mostly sound common 

sense. Social science research, such as economics, does not 

reflect on its own epistemology. It is a kind of knowledge with 

subjective research color, for example, it always puts forward 

opinions based on morality. Schumpeter pointed out in the 

analysis of the writings of ancient Greek scholars: Sophists 

seem to be some of the first to analyze the universe as we do 

now; they are in fact the ancestors of our own way of thinking 

(including logical positivism). But Plato 's purpose is not 

analysis at all, but a super-empirical imagination of an ideal 

city-state, or it can be said to be a city-state of artistic creation. 

There is no analysis of the paintings he depicted for the 

'Republic' in the book 'Republic', just as the Venus in the 

painter 's pen is not a scientific anatomy... However, economic 

analysis finally appeared. There is a relationship between 

Venus in the painter 's works and the facts described by 

scientific anatomy... The concept of the ideal country is also 

related to the information obtained by his observation of the 

actual country... But there is no place to pursue it [analysis] 

itself as a purpose, so it does not go far [1]. 

Schumpeter believes that the germination of analysis 

appeared in Aristotle: "Aristotle's works lack the attractive 

charm of Plato's, But the main difference lies in an intention 

of analysis... His political concepts and doctrines are 

extracted from the Greek constitutions he painstakingly 

collected" [1].  

2.2.2. Medieval period of scholastic scholars 
This period refers to the Middle Ages, from the demise of 

Western Rome in 476 AD to the Renaissance, capitalism and 

the rise of the nation-state in 1453 AD. For the study of 

scholastic scholars, Schumpeter analyzed: The motivation of 

the scholastics ' analysis is obviously not pure scientific 

curiosity, but the desire to understand the things that require 

them to make judgments from a moral point of view. When 

modern economists talk about "value judgment," they refer to 

evaluating systems morally and culturally. The concern of 

scholars is not the good or bad of the system, but the good or 

bad of individual behavior in a specific system and 

environment. They are first of all the teachers of personal 

conscience instructors. 

Schumpeter affirmed the contribution of scholastic 

scholars to economic analysis during this period: Normative 

natural law is always premised on interpretative natural law. 

The former is only a special value judgment on the 

relationship between the facts and facts found by the latter... 

Of course, we can call all value judgments non-scientific or 

super-scientific. But there is no reason to dump the analytical 

baby along with the philosophical bath water. 

2.2.3. Classical period 
First, 'The Wealth of Nations' is a rigorous and painstaking 

work. The achievements of the classical economics period are 

not only reflected in the establishment of the economic theory 

system, but also in the application of economic analysis 

methods. For example, the historical position of 'Wealth of 

Nations' is not only reflected in its creation of the theoretical 

system of classical economics, but also in its effective use of 

economic analysis methods: A large part of the economics of 

the European continent in the seventeenth and eighteenth 

centuries... In terms of insight and practical usefulness is 

almost no worse than the 'national wealth theory', but..... From 

the achievements of the analysis, it is far behind the 'national 

wealth theory'. In Schumpeter's view, the greatest 

achievement of 'Wealth of Nations' lies in its great synthesis 

of economics at the right time, and its painstaking 

coordination of various analytical methods and various 

economic ideas. Schumpeter compared Beccaria, Durkheim 

and Smith, and believed that the talent and innovation of the 

first two were above Smith, but the first two were not as 

successful as Smith. This is mainly because Smith 's "national 

wealth theory" is a rigorous work of a lot of hard work. This 

gives people a lesson: At least in economics, intellectual 

achievement is not enough; it is important to have a beginning 

and an end; fine carving, specific applications, examples of 

instructions also play a role; even in our time, a page-long 

essay can be like Physics as the formation of international 

thought is still far away [5].  

Second, the beginning of statistics and measurement 

methods. This period is also the beginning of statistics and 

measurement methods: In the seventeenth and eighteenth 

centuries, a new way of teaching economics emerged, 

especially in German universities, characterized by a purely 

descriptive introduction to facts related to public 

administration. 

Thirdly, the analytical achievements of the Agrarian School. 

Smith affirmed the analytical achievements of the Physiocrats: 

In terms of the achievements of the analysis, one of the basic 

forms is to examine a simple fact (such as apples falling to the 

ground after they are separated from the branches) at the 

height of theoretical consciousness. Quincey 's contribution 

to capital theory lies in: ... He regarded capital as the wealth 

accumulated before the beginning of the above production 

process and introduced it into economic theory... From this 

point of view, it has opened up many fork roads with a great 

distance between each other. 

Fourth, the analytical achievements of mercantilist writers. 



 

21 

For the analysis of mercantilist writers, Schumpeter believes 

that their analysis is still in the pre-scientific stage: 

Mercantilism writers in most cases put forward their own 

arguments by means of the power of common 

sense...However, they did not conduct in-depth research 

through the surface of the problem. Only by conducting in-

depth research can analytical techniques be used [2, 3].  

However, Schumpeter attaches great importance to the 

concept of trade balance proposed by mercantilist writers. 

Schumpeter believes that it is indeed an analytical tool. 

Fifth, the definition of economics. One of the 

characteristics of this period was that economists began to 

explain themselves, that is, to establish a theory (or 'make a 

reasonable explanation') for their purposes and procedures. 

Sixth, the economic sociology of classical writers. 

Schumpeter compared Marxist ideas when he commented on 

the discussion of the institutional structure of economic 

processes in classical economics from 1790 to 1870. Many 

people criticize Schumpeter 's prejudice against Marxism, so 

Schumpeter 's comments here deserve our attention and 

consideration. 

2.2.4. The period of historicism 
One is the historical school. Schumpeter believed that 

Gustav von Schmoller made the study of historicism 

economics a school of thought. The method of the historical 

school: Schmuller himself and most of the students have 

devoted themselves to the struggle of social reform and tried 

to adhere to their own value judgments; it is wrong and 

unscientific to establish an absolute theory of historical 

evolution without simply summing up the whole process of 

history as the result of one or two factors. Against the 

"isolation" analysis of economic phenomena, we should study 

all aspects of economic phenomena and economic behavior; 

the sum of human motivations shown in history should be 

studied. Corresponding to this is an almost boundless 

expansion of the subject matter of analysis; It is hoped that 

only the results of historical thematic research can be sorted 

out, and the results of historical thematic research can be 

welded together with 'general economics' without the help of 

people 's thinking activities that must be spent in addition to 

thematic research. 

The second is the dispute of methodology. At the height of 

historism, Carl Menger published a book on methodology in 

1883, defending the right to theoretical analysis, while giving 

the Schmüller school a very secondary position, resulting in a 

'methodological' debate. Schumpeter believes that a lot of 

content in the debate is meaningless, adding a lot of mutual 

misunderstanding. In fact, the conflict of methodology is 

often the conflict between temperament (historical 

temperament and theoretical temperament) and intelligence. 

Group confrontation and factional struggle go beyond the 

goal of solving real problems, and even drown out real 

problems. 

Third, economic sociology should be independent. Max 

Weber also belongs to the 'newest' school of history. He points 

out that for social science, the interpretation contains the 

understanding of its 'cultural content' and the interpretation of 

its 'intrinsic meaning'. But Schumpeter thought Weber should 

be called a sociologist. Acknowledging that economic 

sociology is a unique field of study is enough to clarify many 

'methodological' controversies [5, 6].  

2.2.5. Neoclassical period 
First, the progress of analytical methods. In the 1870 s, 

Menger published "Principles of National Economics" (1871), 

Jevons published "Political Economy Theory" (1871), and 

Valla published "Pure Economics Outline" (1873). They 

similarly inherited the personal utilitarian view of Say, Cyril 

and Bastiat, abandoned the labor theory of value in classical 

economics, walked out of the production perspective of 

analyzing problems, explained economic problems from the 

perspective of market / exchange, developed the utility theory 

of value in classical economics, and introduced the law of 

diminishing marginal utility to carry out marginal revolution 

in economics. Among them, Jevons and Valla gave the utility 

value theory a mathematical coat, which made the economic 

theory begin the trend of mathematicalization. Valla even 

established the general equilibrium theory, making the 

economic analysis from the partial equilibrium analysis to the 

general equilibrium analysis. Economics entered the 

neoclassical period (Schumpeter believed that this was related 

to the habit of calling the 'marginal school' theory a 

neoclassical theory, especially in the United States). 

Schumpeter highly praised the progress of economic analysis 

methods in this period: Valla 's economic equilibrium system 

is actually a combination of 'revolutionary' creativity and 

classical comprehensiveness. It is the only work written by 

economists that is no less than the achievement of theoretical 

physics... It is a significant landmark on the road that 

economics wants to obtain strict science or precision science 

qualification. 

Second, the lack of social insightHowever, Schumpeter did 

not give high praise to the insights of economists on social 

phenomena during this period: The subject of economic 

analysis they see, the sum of things that need to be explained, 

is exactly the same as what Smith or Mueller sees... Their 

economic world, like the classical school, is a world 

composed of many independent firms... 

2.3. The Influence of Scientism on Economic 
Research 

2.3.1. The growth of empiricism 
'Objectivity', 'value-free', 'stay out of the matter' empiricism. 

First, deny absolute 'objectivity'. Schumpeter first denied the 

existence of absolute 'objectivity' and defined science as a 

technology developed by a social group specializing in 

research. On the issue of the source of knowledge, he 

corrected the absoluteness of rationalism: The philosophical 

rationalism is the belief that our reason is not only the source 

of truth, and that truth precedes experience, but also that our 

reason can draw conclusions on problems that transcend the 

world, such as the existence of God. Second, the meaning of 

relative 'objectivity'. Schumpeter also emphasized the 

significance of 'objectivity'. For example, as the Bible says, 

Adam was made of clay, and after his death, it must belong to 

the clay. This is undoubtedly a subjective imagination, but it 

may be resorted to such observation. After death, people go 

into the soil and decay into soil. Therefore, economics is 

influenced by value judgment. On ideological bias, 

Schumpeter argues that Malthus 's population theory is a one-

sided view, but likewise, other theories about a single, major 

factor driving social development may also be biased. For the 

issue of objectivity, we can neither fall into the machinery of 

absolutism nor fall into the nothingness of relativism. 

2.3.2. Strict research procedures 
The mainstream economics approach emphasizes 

normative research procedures, drafting research procedures 

before research, rigorously implementing research 

procedures during research, and reporting research 



 

22 

procedures in the writing of reports. So why is scientific 

procedure important? A well-known saying in the field of law 

is: ' Justice should not only be realized, but also be realized in 

a way that people can see. Readers should be allowed to see 

how the research conclusion is drawn, rather than let him 

directly get a research conclusion, only by faith or the author 

's reputation to accept this conclusion. On this point, 

Schumpeter said: Scientific work is different from political 

work. In essence, it is self-exposed. 

2.3.3. Focus on research tools 
The pursuit of objectivity makes the methodology of 

scientism attach great importance to the study and compliance 

of research procedures, so as to ensure the quality of research. 

The emphasis on research procedures has multiplied the 

techniques and tools of scientific research methods. In 

particular, the use of mathematical methods, statistics and 

quantitative analysis methods such as measurement. 

It should be pointed out that the period from 1870 to 1914: 

mathematical reasoning began to play a major and even 

decisive role in the pure theory of economic science. It is not 

mathematical economics to use numbers or even algebraic 

forms to restate some non-mathematical reasoning results: 

only when the reasoning that produces the result itself has 

obvious mathematical properties, will it show the 

characteristics of mathematical economics. There are only 

two obvious examples before von Dunnen and Cournot, 

namely D. Bernory and Beccaria [6].  

The significance of the partial digital expression of 

economic analysis method lies in the help of mathematics to 

economic theory. As far as the problems caused by the 

theoretical schema of the quantitative relationship between 

things are concerned, familiarity with these concepts will 

completely change a person 's view of these problems: the 

problem acquires a new kind of certainty; those points where 

they lose certainty will be clearly revealed; new methods of 

proof and counter-proof have emerged; the maximum reward 

can be extracted from what we know about the relationship 

between variables; infinitesimal logic automatically solves 

many controversial problems. Without its help, this debate 

will hinder the development of analysis. No matter how 

people oppose the method of quantity theory, this method 

undoubtedly has such an advantage, that is, the concepts of P, 

M, V, T and so on. 

At the same time, the significance of empirical data is that 

the standards they provide are more reliable than simple 

'impressions'. 

2.3.4. Cause 'local', 'division of labor', 'atomism' debate 
The early years of the 20th century. At that time, some 

scholars in the West were dissatisfied with the tendency of 

modern cultural division of labor, which was only partial and 

did not speak of the whole 'atomism'. As far as the writing 

style of the report is concerned, scientific economic reports 

are always divided into chapters according to the emergence 

of concepts, or according to different types, or according to a 

certain category... This approach seems to make us farther and 

farther away from the phenomenon or the meaning of the 

story. The story should have the essence of introducing deep 

thinking, and this essence exists in the story as a whole, and 

can not be separated from it. These scholars are eager to 

restore the tradition of humanities, which has been interrupted 

since the Renaissance, focusing on comprehensive research. 

Therefore, they put forward the ideas of 'system theory' and 

'structure theory', emphasizing the study of their structure and 

regularity from the perspective of large system aspects (such 

as various branches of culture or various genres of literature). 

2.3.5. Controversy over 'hypothesis' 
The criticism of scientific mainstream economics often 

falls on the non-reality of its assumptions. In this regard, 

Schumpeter believes that: Whether a hypothesis is correct or 

not depends not only on the observed facts, but also on the 

results it brings. Our proposition is hardly applicable to reality 

in any conceivable situation, but it is extremely important for 

explaining reality. 

The inconsistency between reality and hypothesis, or the 

inconsistency with the conclusion based on the original 

hypothesis, is the key to inspiring new ideas. First, it is 

important to criticize mainstream economics not to overthrow 

a system (analytical tool), but to establish a system (another 

set of analytical tools). Just as relativity replaces Newton 's 

classical physics, different assumptions can lead to different 

systems. Secondly, if different assumptions cannot be 

constructed, different system buildings can be built. Therefore, 

the critical machete can not only fall on the hypothesis, but 

also see the process and results of its analysis [5].  

2.4. The Inspiration of Non-Scientism 
(Humanism) 

Leaving aside the influence of scientism, consider the 

inspiration of humanistic economics for us. 

2.4.1. Research needs to get rid of the shackles of 
scientism 

Science is not equal to the 'correct knowledge', its essence 

is a way of understanding the world, rather than the 

knowledge itself; even the internal camp of scientism is 

constantly reflecting on the standards of science and avoiding 

the constraints and narrowness caused by mechanized 

standards. 

2.4.2. The most brilliant embodiment of the so-called 
'science' often arises from something best known as 

imagination, similar to artistic creation 

The inspiration of humanistic economics to people. 

Influenced by the trend of post-modern philosophy, the 

methodology of social science has a new trend, and it has been 

turning to the humanities to seek models, theories and 

analytical methods. The coordinates of the method are close 

to humanistic care from the mechanical scientism that regards 

the world as the physical world. In addition to rigorous logical 

thinking, human intuition and imagination are still important 

abilities to understand the world. Like Newton, Einstein and 

Hawking, their great theories were mainly based on their own 

imagination before they came into being, and the ability to 

imagine may need to be cultivated from the temperament of 

the humanities. A scientific researcher, if she has both 

scientific rigor and humanistic interest, her vision is bound to 

be broader, and the inspiration of imagination will be more. 

However, the results obtained have to be 'tested' by logical 

methods or rational methods under the guidance of 

professional standards, and this is enough to make rationality 

in this sense affect the scientific knowledge we have at any 

time. Many examples in economics come from introspection, 

such as marginal utility, or even indifference surfaces or 

curves. Although they use data that can be observed in 

principle, they do use 'potential' observational data that no one 

has really obtained so far. 



 

23 

2.5. Schumpeter's Bias Towards Marx's 
Ideological View of "Political Economy" 

Schumpeter analyzes the ideological elements and roles of 

Smith, Marx, and Keynes in their respective economic 

structures, and attempts to demonstrate the variability and 

diversity of the relationship between economic science and 

ideology. In the analysis of the ideological elements and 

functions in the structure of Marx 's economics, Schumpeter 

put forward the following three basic viewpoints: 

First, although Marx was 'an economist who discovered 

ideology for us and understood its essence', Marx believed 

that 'bourgeois economists and utopian socialists are the 

victims of ideology', and never talked about his own 'The 

ideological characteristics of the reasoning premise and the 

ideological bias he advocates are quite obvious'. This is a 

misunderstanding of Marx 's understanding of the relationship 

between economic science and ideology. Marx 's ideological 

evaluation of bourgeois economists and utopian socialists not 

only appreciates and highly affirms the ideological concept of 

social progress in their theories, but also criticizes and sharply 

criticizes the backward and even reactionary ideological 

concepts in their theories. When Marx first studied economic 

theory, he made both positive and critical evaluations of the 

ideological views of bourgeois economists represented by 

Ricardo. On the other hand, it became the so-called 

'ideological deviation' in Schumpeter [8].  

Second, Schumpeter believes that since Marx became a 

'professional economist' in the late 1840 s, he has determined 

the 'imagination' of the capitalist process. However, Marx's 

'scientific work is to deduce this imagination rather than 

correct it', especially some 'imagination' is not Marx's 

'initiative'. For example, in the 18th century, some scholars 

believed that 'history is regarded as a class struggle, which is 

defined as the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the 

proletarians. With the exploitation of one party to the other 

party, wealth grows among the more and more few owners, 

and the suffering and degeneration of the proletarians are 

intensifying. Schumpeter did not make a comprehensive 

understanding of Marx's ideological system, nor did he 

understand the true meaning and essence of Marx's 

ideological system. After the European Revolution in 1848, 

Marx made a new evaluation of the previous theory of class 

struggle, and did not stay in the "imagination" before 

Schumpeter's so-called "scientific review process." In 1851, 

Marx put forward: 'Whether it is found that there are classes 

in modern society or the struggle between classes, it is not my 

credit... Long before me, bourgeois historiographers have 

described the historical development of class struggle, and 

bourgeois economists have also made economic analysis of 

various classes. The "new content" of Marx's ideology of 

class struggle is to prove the following points: (1) the 

existence of class is only related to a certain historical stage 

of production and development; (2) class struggle will 

inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat; (3) This 

dictatorship is only a transition to eliminate all classes and 

enter a classless society. 

Thirdly, Schumpeter argues that as Marx's analytical work 

matured, he "exhausted a great deal of scientific analysis". For 

example, about the theory of economic crisis, the theory of 

surplus value, etc. But Marx through the original, ideological 

exposition of such as absolute (or abstract) rules, presents 

other results of his analysis, conceals “abusive terms”, and 

criticizes the ideological concept of “deviation from real life” 

that exists in other economists [9].  

However, in the second edition of the first volume of 

“Capital”, Marx made a systematic exposition of the basic 

context and process characteristics of the history of political 

economy, and made a severe criticism of the development of 

bourgeois political economy from the perspective of ideology, 

but there was no “abusive language” that Schumpeter called 

hidden. Marx explored the transformation of classical 

political economy to vulgar political economy from the 

perspective of social view, historical view and corresponding 

class view. Marx believed that British classical political 

economy “belongs to the period of non-development of class 

struggle”, that is, the period of non-development of the main 

contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in 

capitalist society. At this time, Ricardo, the “last and great 

representative” of classical political economy, can also 

“consciously regard the opposition of class interests, the 

opposition of wages and profits, the opposition of profits and 

land rents as the starting point of his research”. In bourgeois 

ideology, he can also “regard this opposition as the natural 

law of society” in political economy [3]. 

In the "poverty of philosophy," Marx attributed the root of 

this "vulgar economics" concept to the "dual" contradictory 

changes in the three aspects of capitalist production relations, 

that is, "poverty also occurs in those relations that generate 

wealth; in those relations that develop productive forces, a 

force of oppression is also developed; only by constantly 

destroying the wealth of individual members of the 

bourgeoisie and producing a growing proletariat can these 

relations produce the wealth of the bourgeoisie, that is, the 

wealth of the bourgeoisie.'' The "double" contradiction in 

these three aspects is essentially "mutual confrontation and 

conflict" in "interests," and "this opposition in interests is 

caused by the economic conditions of their bourgeois life." 

The theory of political economy, which reflects the change of 

ideology, is irreversibly changing from classical political 

economy to vulgar political economy. 

3. Conclusion and Suggestions 

First, In the division of labor in Western disciplines, 

mainstream economics often refers to scientific economics, 

while economic sociology focuses on humanistic economics. 

But now this kind of narrow specialization is only to ensure 

the most efficiency. If we regard this boundary as a kind of 

opposition, it is a big mistake. It would be extremely foolish 

to start from respecting the existing boundaries or disciplinary 

structure to determine whether we should do or should not do 

any interesting work. 

Epistemology and its methodology are continuums, and 

one end of the coordinate is a scientific epistemology like 

Newton, the other end is religious mysticism such as Sufism 

in Islam. Science is not the right way to understand the world, 

but a way to understand the world. When facing different 

issues, the epistemology and methodology involved in 

different issues are not a point of this continuous coordinate, 

but a fuzzy interval of borders. In this interval, the use of 

epistemology and methodology is not uniform. The topic of 

economics research includes two aspects: human and material. 

There are both human and physical topics. Therefore, 

economics can neither be purely human nor purely physical. 

The epistemology and methodology of economics can only 

be in the middle of the continuous coordinate axis, and 

perhaps should be closer to the end of scientism. Because, 

even if the current methodology of the transformation of 



 

24 

humanism, its bottom line is still not get rid of but still 

emphasize the rational thinking and analysis of the 

methodology, not to pure intuition enlightenment and 

speculation. 

The development of methodology in western countries is at 

the forefront, and has experienced a process from 

spontaneous to conscious state. The initial research was to 

confuse scientific analysis with ideology. When they realized 

the differences, they began to clarify the scope of the 

discipline of economics. After cutting out the ideological 

things, they limited economics to a relatively narrow scope 

and made considerable professional development. It is 

precisely because of this specialization that the task of 

economists is also limited to a narrow scope. For example, the 

conclusion of economists does not give him the right to add a 

word of advice. But his words do not mean that economists as 

scientists are not allowed to put forward practical advice, 

because this advice contains a final evaluation that is super-

scientific in nature, that is, it contains preferences beyond the 

scope of scientific proof... Economic policy issues always 

contain so many non-economic factors, so they should not be 

dealt with on the basis of purely economic considerations. 

After a certain period of time after the clearance of the 

boundaries of various disciplines and the development of 

specialization, human understanding has begun to constantly 

require the disciplines that have been cleared to cross each 

other and learn from each other, and the limitations of the 

research premise and hypothesis have been continuously 

relaxed to be more connected. 

Within the limits of rational knowledge, we should 

maintain this tension - the tension between science and 

humanities. Everyone has an ideology, but don 't build a fence 

between ideologies and keep listening and talking. On this 

point, our faith may not need to be so enthusiastic and can not 

accommodate other views, not full of hostile hatred, should 

have the spirit of self-criticism. The inclusive and dialogue 

attitude in methodology is conducive to the full development 

of both the original paradigm and the new paradigm. Special 

attention is also conducive to the development of the original 

paradigm. On the contrary, if pure confrontation is adopted 

without an inclusive attitude, once the original paradigm is 

overthrown in a revolutionary way, the valuable things in the 

original paradigm will be abandoned, resulting in waste or 

even new mistakes. 

The criticism of mainstream economics by non-

mainstream economics is actually different in terms of the 

scale of the problem. In the pre-scientific era, it was popular 

economics, pre-analytical economics. Its content is mostly 

sound common sense. Gradually, economic analysis changes 

from spontaneity to consciousness, and this process moves 

from the local to the overall, from a smaller scale to a larger 

scale. On a smaller scale, it can be valuable and neutral, and 

the method is scientific analysis; on a larger scale, it is a value 

position, and the method is humanistic reflection. 

Second. Attention should be paid to the training of 

scientific analysis methods. Schumpeter pointed out that the 

level of ability shows that there are many frequent 

unnecessary debates just because they do not understand. 

Therefore, we should carry out the training of scientism 

methodology paradigm. First of all, although the research of 

scientism has its defects, some of the basic strategies and 

techniques of investigation, observation, interview, case study 

and text analysis still constitute the basis of the new 

methodological paradigm. The characteristics of scientism is 

its instrumental rationality, therefore, in the development of 

strategies and techniques on the peak, these are available tools; 

secondly, the research method of scientism is also a starting 

point for further criticism of values. The new methodology is 

developed on the basis of criticizing scientism. It is 

impossible for us to criticize it without knowing anything 

about scientism. Therefore, learning the tools and methods of 

scientism is to better sublate, better understand the humanistic 

transformation of methodology, and get more inspiration and 

contribution in the new trend of methodology. Finally, the 

research method of scientism is a basic skill of researchers, 

which helps researchers to move from spontaneity to 

consciousness in empirical research methods. 

References 

[1] Joseph Schumpeter: A History of Economic Analysis (Vol.1) 
(Chinese translation). 

[2] Joseph Schumpeter: A History of Economic Analysis (Vol.2) 
(Chinese translation). 

[3] Joseph Schumpeter: A History of Economic Analysis (Vol.3) 
(Chinese translation). 

[4] Interview: Lukacs on His Life and Work [J]. NLR, 1971, 68 
(July-August): 56-57. 

[5] S David Harvey, A Companion to Marx's Grundrisse, Lon⁃ don: 
Verso, 2023. 

[6] Nathan Rosenberg," Was Schumpeter a Marxist?" Indus⁃ trial 
and Corporate Change, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2011, pp. 1215-1222. 

[7] Kurz. H. D., Economic Thought: A Brief History, New York: 
Columbia University Press, 2016b. 

[8] Faccarello. G. and Kurz. H. D., Handbook on the History of 
Economic Analysis (three volumes) ,2016. Volume I: Great 
Economists since Petty and Boisguilbert. Volume II: Schools 
of Thought in Economics. Volume III: Developments in Major 
Fields of Economics. 

[9] Ricardo. D., The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo 
(11 vols), Edited by Piero Sraffa with the collaboration of M. 
H. Dobb, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951-1973.