Gunnar Myrdal Sounding Like Tony Lawson?

This passage suggests to me that, in economics, one cannot expect to find event regularities from surface level data:

"The really important difference between us and our natural science colleagues is illustrated by the fact that we never reach down to constants like the speed of light and of sound in a particular medium, or the specific weights of atoms and molecules. We have nothing corresponding to the universally valid measurements of energy, voltage, amperes, and so on. The regularities we find do not have the firm, general, and lasting validity of 'laws of nature.'

If we economists, for instance, establish by observation the income or price elasticity for, say, sugar, our findings are valid for only a specific group of consumers in a single community or region at a particular time - not to mention the fact that the concept elasticity itself loses what I call adequacy to reality, and thereby analytical usefulness, in underdeveloped countries that have no, or very imperfect, 'markets,' in the sense given to this term by the economists." -- Gunnar Myrdal, Against the Stream: 138-139.

Myrdal wrote a lot about methodology. He was intererested in how unacknowledged valuations enter into economic theory. And he thinks social scientists should explicitly state their valuations. But he does not write about ontology.

I don't know how this applies to me. I suppose you can say that my focus on distribution, especially wages, reflects some valuations. I think, though, that I am mostly focusing on mathematics. And by looking for structures in parameter spaces for open models of prices of production, I am not making claims about event regularities at surface levels. I leave to others to relate movements in market prices to prices of production. Really, though, when I first learned about Robinson and Sraffa, I was astonished that a serious reason exists to think intermediate microeconomics, as widely taught, is nonsense, not even wrong.