Abstract:The article argues and demonstrates that classical–neoclassical economics generally does not pretend or claim that its principles apply to domains beyond the economy, specifically wealth, and does not equate the economic and the noneconomic, and the rational and the nonrational. By contrast, the “economic approach to human behavior” or “rational choice theory” precisely does this to legitimize itself by invoking classical–neoclassical economics as supreme authority and its representatives as venerable precursors. The article reveals the economic approach to human behavior as a set of grand theoretical and methodological claims, equivalences, and analogies from the standpoint of conventional economics itself, as well as sociology and other social sciences. It identifies and examines certain indicative instances of such tendencies. The article aims to contribute to understanding better the relations—or rather lack thereof—between conventional economics and contemporary economic and sociological rational choice theory. The economic approach to human behavior is not new, even outside the market sector. The rational choice model provides the most promising basis presently available for a unified approach to the analysis of the social world by scholars from different social sciences. — Gary Becker With respect to those parts of human conduct of which wealth is not even the principal object, to these political economy does not pretend that its conclusions are applicable. — John S. Mill But economy does not treat of all human motives. There are motives nearly always present with us, arising from conscience, compassion, or from some moral or religious source, which economy cannot and does not pretend to treat. These will remain to us as outstanding and disturbing forces; they must be treated, if at all, by other appropriate branches of knowledge. — William Jevons A science, therefore, based on the hypothesis (of universal rationality) would yield a general form of the social phenomenon having little or no contact with reality … — Vilfredo Pareto

Economic models as argumentative devices

Economic models and their flexible interpretations: a philosophy of science perspective

Insider apology for microeconomic theorising?

On the contents and agents of commentary in modelling

A CRITIQUE ON ECONOMIC MODELING:CONCLUSIONS LOGICALLY IMPLIED IN THE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS——A View on the Problems in the Process of Economic Modeling from the Truth That Different Results Are Induced by the Same Utility Function

Economic Modelling As Robustness Analysis

Unrealistic Assumptions in Rational Choice Theory

Rational Choice Theory or Pretense? The Claims, Equivalences, and Analogies of the “Economic Approach to Human Behavior”

Equilibrium modeling in economics: a design-based defense

Reflections on Econometric Modeling Methodology

Feedback models and stability analysis of three economic paradigms

The Econometric Model for Causal Policy Analysis

The virtues and vices of equilibrium and the future of financial economics

Of Coase, Cattle, and Crime: Why the Becker Model is Compatible with a Moral Theory of Criminal Law

A Model of Competing Narratives

Econometric Causality: The Central Role of Thought Experiments

Homo economicus to model human behavior is ethically doubtful and mathematically inconsistent

A Review of Mathematical Models of Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, and Government Regulation of the Economy

METHODOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM OF ECONOMIC MAN IN MODERN SCIENCE

Introduction to the special issue: economic theories and their dueling interpretations

'Let me tell you a story': the politics of macroeconomic models