Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:18:22 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
========================= HES POSTING ================
Two points I wish to add to this discussion:
1) I have been watching the discussion so far with the following question
in mind: why do we need a definition? Several people have directly
addressed this question, and the general consensus seems to be that we
need a definition in order to distinguish neoclassical economics from
other forms of economics. In several cases, the need to differentiate
forms of economics is related to the desire to criticize neoclassical
economics.
Let me suggest that this answer implies a theoretical stance which is not
necessarily helpful to the historian of economics. As Dan Hammond
suggested in his editorial several months ago
(http://www.eh.net/HisEcSoc/Resources/Editorials/Hammond/), taxonomic
differentiations are often done for present theoretical purposes; the
historian of economics may have to use them, but should do so with extreme
caution.
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.
2) Pat Gunning suggested that we need to define "classical" economics in
order to define "neoclassical." Tony Brewer's early comments about the
vagueness of neoclassicism would only be compounded here (as I expect
Tony will say himself about "classical" economics), but I want to add an
additional element in reply to Pat. It seems to me that the definition of
"classical" economics he provides was **constructed** by the individuals
Pay would identify as neoclassical (Knight, for example -- or Keynes) in
their attempts to distinguish their work from other economic work in the
early twentieth century. To be clear about this, and to relate it to my
first point, Knight and others found it necessary for their theoretical
purposes to construct a definition of "classical" economics which they
could use in current economic debate as a focal point for their own
theoretical work. Of course, there need be no special/unique relation
between that definition of "classical" economics and the writings any
particular economist. As a historian, it is interesting to study Knight's
construction of "classical" economics in order to see how he used it in
the process of resistance and accomodation in his contemporary discursive
context; but there is no reason to assume that that construction should be
any means guide a historian of economics in their study of English
political economy in any century.
Ross
Ross B. Emmett
Manager, Electronic Information, History of Economics Society
Augustana University College
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: http://www.augustana.ab.ca/~emmer
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|