Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:22 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
===================== HES POSTING ====================
Ross B. Emmett wrote:
> In my own research, I have found the "canned" definitions of neoclassical
> economics, and those of institutionalism, almost worthless in my efforts
> to study the work of Frank Knight. What does help is to identify what
> Knight thought himself to be resisting (which is often both neoclassicism
> and institutionalism by the "canned" definitions!), and the means by
> which he accomodated his ideas to various audiences over time.
> Of course, there need be no special/unique relation
> between that definition of "classical" economics and the writings any
> particular economist.
I agree with Ross here. I would add, however, that collective terms such
as "classical" and "neoclassical" to refer to dead economists are means
of grouping economists together according to their similarities, not of
studying a particular economist.
To add some strength to my earlier point, think of the collective terms
"institutional" and "neo-institutional," "Keynesian" and
"neo-Keynesian," and "Austrian" and "neo-Austrian." Would anyone claim
that these terms are useless in classifying groups of economists?
--
Pat Gunning
http://www.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome.htm
http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|