Срещу уиг интерпретацията на историята &#1085... (Bulgarian)

The paper presents a negative view with respect to Paul Samuelson's whig interpretation of history of economic analysis - to what he reduces historiography of economics, and actually against its current legitimation, seen in Medema and Waterman (2010) and Medema and Waterman, eds. (2014). The analysis is focused on the unity of Samuelson's whig historical and theoretical approaches. The attention is drawn to a series of original methodological and theoretical views in his influential publications, identifying his position, which (views) as a matter of fact disprove his claim for ‘better' whig interpretation of history of economic science. It is pointed out that it is not a mere idiosyncrasy of Samuelson's contribution amongst the figures of post-World War II economics; it is an expression of the general tendency in mainstream economics to embody in its theory the whig historical approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ikonomiceski I Socialni Alternativi is the property of University of National & World Economy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)