================== HES POSTING ====================
I have been following the discussion of the institutionalization of
neoclassical economics with much interest, and find that I must disagree
with Robin Neill's claim that,
>The economic system of the United States approximates the Neoclassical
>paradigm. Its structure, its aspirations and values, its problems are
>easily analyzed in the context of that paradigm....That
>is why the Neoclassical paradigm is dominant in the United States.
First regarding structure, I would argue that the structures assumed by
neoclassical economics (many firms, freedom of entry and exit, perfect
information, and so forth) bear little resemblance to the actural structure
of the contemporary U.S. economy, dominated by large national and
multinational corportions, high entry barriers and asymmetric information.
As Joan Robinson famously said, the setting of supply and demand analysis
has no resemblence to modern capitalism. It is suited, rather, to the
disucsssion of a rural fair where peasants and artisans meet to exchange
products. It is more characteristic of a rural fair where peasants and
artisans barter their surplus products.
However, I do think that Robin is correct in saying that the aspirations
and values of the U.S. economy are easily analyzed in the context of the
neoclasscial paradigm. Again to call on Joan Robinson, "the central
doctrine of orthodox economics is the defense of the freedom of anyone
who has money to spend, to spend it as he likes."
(From "The Disintegration of Economics," in What are the Questions? What
are the Answers, 1980, M.E. Sharp.)
For me the interesting issue is why the neoclassical paradigm is able to
fail so miserably by any criteria for good social science, but
nevertheless retain such a strong hold on so many people and institutions.
Including those who's interests are not well served by modern corporate
capitalism.
Drue Barker
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|