What Is Neoclassical Economics

Despite some diversification modern economics still attracts a great deal of criticism. This is largely due to highly unrealistic assumptions underpinning economic theory, explanatory failure, poor policy framing, and a dubious focus on prediction. Many argue that flaws continue to owe much of their shortcomings to neoclassical economics. As a result, what we mean by neoclassical economics remains a significant issue. This collection addresses the issue from a new perspective, taking as its point of departure Tony Lawson’s essay ‘What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics?’. Few terms are as controversial for pluralist and heterodox economists as neoclassical economics. This controversy has many aspects because the term itself has different specifications and connotations. Within this multiplicity what we mean by neoclassical matters to pluralist and heterodox economists for two primary reasons. First, because it informs how we view and critique the mainstream; second, because the relationship between heterodox and mainstream economics influences how heterodox economists model, apply methods and construct theory. The chapters in this collection each have different things to say about these matters, with contributions ranging across the work of key thinkers, such as Thorstein Veblen and Kenneth Arrow, applied issues of non-linear modelling of dynamic systems, and key events in the history of economics. This book will be of use to those interested in methodology, political economy, heterodoxy, and the history of economic thought.

First published in 1990, this unique explanation of the rise of neoclassical economics views social change as an engine promoting change in theory. It attempts to develop a theory of the origins, consolidation and rise to dominance of the neoclassical school of thought. In so doing, it addresses the contest between the labour and utility theories of value; both are placed in historical context, and reasons are offered for the relative success of each in particular historical periods. It is argued that the eventual dominance of neoclassicism, a theory based on the social changes then taking place, resulted not from its scientific superiority but from its non-social perspective which ignores the social order upon which it depends.

Warren J. Samuels Each book in this series explores the present status of its field in terms of where it is, how it got there, the existing tensions within the field, and something of how the field might develop in the future. Each book presumes that work in each field is neither settled nor unequivocal. Each book attempts to comprehend its field as an evolving, developmental process or set or efforts. This particular book, covering neoclassical economics, is the third of three in the field of the History of Economic Thought. The others are Pre-Classical Economic Thought, edited by S. Todd Lowry, and Classical Political Economy, edited by William O. Thweatt. Each one conducts the same kind of analysis as the others in the series, with the understanding that here we are dealing with the history of interpretation, rather than a substantive body of analysis of a certain aspect of the economy: for example, labor or international trade. (That understanding must be com plex and subtle, inasmuch as revision of interpretation of earlier ideas is part of the process-both cause and consequence-of re-analyzing the economy. ) In this group we are interested in how recent and contemporary writers have interpreted the history of economic thought differently, both among themselves and from earlier writers. 1 NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMIC lHEORY 2 Several topics must be discussed to place such work in perspective, in part as it is here applied to the history of the interpretation of neoclassical economics.

This introduction to the main heterodox schools of economic thought examines their main concepts and their critiques of mainstream theory. The schools examined include Austrian economics, geo-economics, the Virginia school of political economy, feminist economics, humanist economics, institutional economics, and nondeterminist Marxism. The aim of these essays is to understand the ideas and methodology of these approaches, and also to explain why there are different approaches to economics, and how the various schools relate to each other.

Mainstream economics almost completely ignores the role power plays in determining economic outcomes, which means it can only provide partial explanations of the distribution of wealth and income, and of the problems associated with inequality and poverty. For many, this is a fundamental failing that severely limits its relevance to the real world and is the source of much dissatisfaction with, and cynicism about, economics and economists. Ozanne explains how this neglect of power has come about over the past 150 years and why it is important. He reviews various definitions and theories of power from across the social sciences and proposes a new approach that could bring considerations of power back into standard economic theory and economics teaching. The approach is simple and intuitive, involving little more than re-envisioning the social welfare function as a 'political economy function'. However, if adopted in economics teaching, it could radically change the way young economists are taught to think about economic problems and lead to a 'return to political economy'.

A systematic comparison of the 3 major economic theories—neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian—showing how they differ and why these differences matter in shaping economic theory and practice. Contending Economic Theories offers a unique comparative treatment of the three main theories in economics as it is taught today: neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian. Each is developed and discussed in its own chapter, yet also differentiated from and compared to the other two theories. The authors identify each theory's starting point, its goals and foci, and its internal logic. They connect their comparative theory analysis to the larger policy issues that divide the rival camps of theorists around such central issues as the role government should play in the economy and the class structure of production, stressing the different analytical, policy, and social decisions that flow from each theory's conceptualization of economics. Building on their earlier book Economics: Marxian versus Neoclassical, the authors offer an expanded treatment of Keynesian economics and a comprehensive introduction to Marxian economics, including its class analysis of society. Beyond providing a systematic explanation of the logic and structure of standard neoclassical theory, they analyze recent extensions and developments of that theory around such topics as market imperfections, information economics, new theories of equilibrium, and behavioral economics, considering whether these advances represent new paradigms or merely adjustments to the standard theory. They also explain why economic reasoning has varied among these three approaches throughout the twentieth century, and why this variation continues today—as neoclassical views give way to new Keynesian approaches in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008.

Despite some diversification modern economics still attracts a great deal of criticism. This is largely due to highly unrealistic assumptions underpinning economic theory, explanatory failure, poor policy framing, and a dubious focus on prediction. Many argue that flaws continue to owe much of their shortcomings to neoclassical economics. As a result, what we mean by neoclassical economics remains a significant issue. This collection addresses the issue from a new perspective, taking as its point of departure Tony Lawson’s essay ‘What is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics?’. Few terms are as controversial for pluralist and heterodox economists as neoclassical economics. This controversy has many aspects because the term itself has different specifications and connotations. Within this multiplicity what we mean by neoclassical matters to pluralist and heterodox economists for two primary reasons. First, because it informs how we view and critique the mainstream; second, because the relationship between heterodox and mainstream economics influences how heterodox economists model, apply methods and construct theory. The chapters in this collection each have different things to say about these matters, with contributions ranging across the work of key thinkers, such as Thorstein Veblen and Kenneth Arrow, applied issues of non-linear modelling of dynamic systems, and key events in the history of economics. This book will be of use to those interested in methodology, political economy, heterodoxy, and the history of economic thought.

Several contemporary economic theories revolve around different concepts: market failures, institutions, transaction costs, information asymmetries, motivational diversity, cognitive limitations, strategic behaviors and evolutionary stability. In recent years, many economists have argued that the increase in circulation and mobilization of these new and heterogeneous concepts and their associated methodologies (e.g., experiments, evolutionary modelling, simulations) signify the death of neoclassical economics. Late Neoclassical Economics: The Restoration of Theoretical Humanism in Contemporary Economic Theory draws on the work of Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault and the Amherst School, to construct the concept of a self-transparent and self-conscious human subject (Homo economicus) as the theoretical humanist core of the neoclassical tradition. Instead of identifying the emergent heterogeneity as a break from neoclassicism, this book offers a careful genealogy of many of the new concepts and approaches - including evolutionary game theory, experimental economics and behavioural economics - and reads their elaboration as part of the restoration of the theoretical humanist core of the tradition. ‘Late neoclassical economics’ is therefore characterized as a collection of diverse approaches which have emerged in response to the drift towards structuralism. This book is suitable for those who study political economy, history of economic thought and philosophy of economics. The arguments put forward in this text will also resonate with anyone who is interested in the fate of the neoclassical tradition and the future of economic theory.