2015. Interdisciplinarity is for me the natural way of thinking. (small essay, Conversas Interdisciplinares, ANPOCS)
2011. The core of neoclassical economics (general equilibrium and rational expectations macroeconomics) is demoralized. A Keynesian-structuralist alternative is available. What is necessary to do to become mainstream again. Portuguese version available. Also available a Slide presentation.
2010. Porque adotam método de ciências como a matemática para justificar o “laissez-faire”, origem de crises e mais crises. (Article: Folha de S.Paulo, 08.02.2010)
2010. Because they adopt scientific methods as mathematics to justify the laissez faire, the origin of countless crises. (Article: Folha de S. Paulo, February 08, 2010)
2008. Neoclassical economists use the hipothetical deductive method, but an empirical-deductive method, particularly the new historical facts approach, is a a more advisable aternative. (Paper: Journal of Post Keynesian Economics). Portuguese version available.
2009. Neoclassical economists use the hipothetical deductive method, but an empirical-deductive method, particularly the new historical facts approach, is a a more advisable aternative. (Paper: Revista de Economia Política). English version available.
2006. Note on thruth asserting that the ability to achieve thruth depends on the complexity of the objects that are studied. (Note: prepared to students)
2005. Tony Lawson is making an important contribution to economic methodology with his ontological approach, and also because he sees that mainstream economics is essentially characterized by the method it uses – a mathematical-deductive method. (Comments to Tony Lawson's paper, “The nature of heterodox economics” just published here).
2005. Societys three instances (structural, cultural, and institutional) help us to distinguish and understand social sciences roles. (Note for class discussion)
Alexandra S. de Farias Godoi (2004).”The method of the historical new fact”. Paper in the Festricht of Bresser-Pereira, Em Busca do Novo. (Paper in edited book)
2003. The ambition of developing a unique and comprehensive economic theory is vain and dangerous. (Note just published in this website 14 pages)