Abstract (EN)

In her essay, Juliette Rouchier links the stated intentions of the author of The Poverty of Clio to a French movement of academic dissent contesting the dominance of neoclassical theory in economics. Boldizzoni grounds his criticism in scientific arguments, thereby missing the political dimensions of the discussion. One political dimension is internal to the academic environment, when career management is considered for instance; one is external, when the role of economists in political advising is considered. Both explain the dominance of neoclassical thought, and its occasional misuse. Accordingly, the arguments developed in The Poverty of Clio’, which are purely methodological and forcefully reject the neoclassical approach in any context, seem to miss the point if they are to have any effect in terms of epistemological change. One may advocate for an already existing third way, which mixes several epistemologies in order to adapt them to the issues at stake.