
doi: 10.1007/bf02706050
minate. Since the greater part of the testing of economic propositions involves considerations of signs and sign changes, the possibility of the Giffen good renders the theory of consumer behavior irrefutable. Professor Louis De Alessi has recently given a methodological appraisal of Giffen's paradox2. We will consider the methodological problem which the Giffen paradox poses for the economist intent on establishing the empirical status of microeconomic theory. We will then turn to more general considerations of the falsifiability of economic theory based on some recent discussions of Professor Adolf Grunbaum. These considerations will lead us to reject De Alessi's proposal for rectifying the problem of the paradox. Finally, we will turn to the problem of ceteris paribus as it bears on De Alessi's argument, and observe that he has not resolved this problem. I.
330.economics, Giffen Paradox, Falsifiability, Microeconomic Theory, Article, jel: jel:D1, jel: jel:D2, jel: jel:D3, jel: jel:D4
330.economics, Giffen Paradox, Falsifiability, Microeconomic Theory, Article, jel: jel:D1, jel: jel:D2, jel: jel:D3, jel: jel:D4
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
