Den store nationalekonomen Alfred Marshalls syn på nationalekonomins metod beskrivs på följande vis av Arthur Pigou:

Starting out then with the firm view that economic science is chiefly valuable, neither as an intellectual gymnastic nor even as a means of winning truth for its own sake, but as a handmaid of ethics and a servant of practice, Marshall resolutely set himself to mould his work along lines conforming to that ideal. Though a skilled mathematician, he used mathematics sparingly. He saw that excessive reliance on this instrument might lead us astray in pursuit of intellectual toys, imaginary problems not conforming to the conditions of real life: and, further, might distort our sense of proportion by causing us to neglect factors that could not easily be worked up in the mathematical machine.

Marshall själv uttrycker sin syn så här:

(1) Use mathematics as a shorthand language, rather than as an engine of inquiry. (2) Keep to them till you have done. (3) Translate into English. (4) Then illustrate by examples that are important in real life. (5) Burn the mathematics. (6) If you can’t succeed in (4), burn (3). This last I did often.

Har inte vissa av dagens nationalekonomer något att lära här? Jag tror det, men förekomsten av rent matematisk analys i nationalekonomisk forskning har, enligt min uppfattning, blivit mindre under det senaste decenniet.

Båda citaten är hämtade ur Coase, Ronald (1975). ”Marshall on Method.” Journal of Law and Economics, 18(1): 25–31.
För en diskussion om matematik i modern nationalekonomi, se Econ Journal Watch-artiklarna  ”Where Would Adam Smith Publish Today?” och ”Model Building versus Theorizing”.