Ror, there are probably just as many different economic schools of thought as there are sociology. It's just that neoclassical economics have dominated the others for so long.
Too many assume that analysis of statistics and other forms of number crunching are the main factors of economic study. They are not, save perhaps certain neoclassical schools. Economics should be about the application of logic to theory, because, quite frankly, studying economics empirically is rather inefficient as there are so many variables. Yes, certain trends may be noted, but one cannot say something necessarily caused something else because they usually occur at the same time without some logical explanation.
Economics has, in far too many cases, assumed the fully rational man, who makes all business decisions correctly. This is simply not true. There is no general equilibrium - human uncertainty prevents it. No one business has ever actually priced a good at the exact interaction between supply and demand. Pareto optimality is a fool's dream. To assume that value is determined by cost of production is wrong - value is in the eye of the valuer. It is for this reason that the use of overly complex mathematical equations within economics is so flawed; it makes too many minor assumptions, which ruins the system.
Hence, economics is, or at least should be, a soft science, because it must not assume anything about how well people make economic decisions - except, of course, what can be logically assumed. Sociology and economics are infinitely wound around each other.
Read up on what is gaining more attention every day.
Linear Mode
