I’m taking a stab at applying for a PhD (don’t know where yet) and am in the process of writing a research proposal. Am looking into the possibility of trying to understand the ‘wisdom’ if you will of the prohibition against usury as prescribed in many religious texts (Christianity and Islam to name a few). Haven’t found any satisfactory explanations of this based on Austrian/praxeological analysis.
What’s gotten me stuck is that I haven’t much experience in the way of rigorous academic research and am stuck at the “Research Methodology” part of the proposal. It’s my understanding that empirical/quantitative analysis is not an appropriate approach in the Austrian school of thought. Any suggestions on an appropriate analytical and research methodology ? Suggestions, comments, examples and criticisms would be highly appreciated!
We know that every morning the sun accompanies the rooster’s call, but does that mean that it caused the sun to rise?
The mere correlation of two events does not imply causation. With the natural sciences this is fine, because the properties of all things of the same type are assumed to be constant. Carbon everywhere is always assumed to act as all other carbon molecules under the same circumstances. Therefore if we can put these things under labratory tests under the same conditions and therefore we can derive laws of nature.
The same cannot be said for the social sciences where the same situations can never be repeated. Economic events are the outcome of individual behavior, but people change, both the specific individuals at hand, and everything about those that remain. Furthermore these individuals are acting under what they percieve to be different circumstances than they were other times. There is no cut and copy individual perception of “economic downturn” or “increased demand”. Finally, even if it were theoretically possible to have the same people stuck with the same information and frames of mind anyway (really possible there) then the number of factors which are occuring at any one time are incredibly numerous, there are too many to ever think that they can realistically be held constant.
As Mises states:
The mathematical economists reiterate that the plight of mathematical economics consists in the fact that there are a great number of variables. The truth is that there are only variables and no constants. It is pointless to talk of variables where there are no invariables.
Therefore emprical evidence without a priori relationships are pointless in the social sciences. However, if an a priori relationship is known of then we can say that, for instance “the increase in the supply of money during a time of limited increases in productive efficiency lead to a general increase in prices”. In this way we can also hopefully glean the extent that such factors can have, although we must attempt to show as many of the factors as possible. For instance we might be able to show the speed of general price rise in a society of rabid spenders as opposed to a society of frugal savers.
Thank you. I gathered as much also from Mises’s tome “Human Action”.
Still, I’m worried about how to put that down into the Research Methodology part of a research proposal. Do I basically say: “I won’t gather much empirical data, and will rely on inductive reasoning based on the axioms of praxeology, do a thorough reading of the relevant literature and report back my conclusions” ?
