==================== HES POSTING =================== 
 
At this late stage in the discussion let me throw in two little cents. 
Whatever we take "neoclassical economics" to be, don't you think that 
the first step is to contrast it with "classical economics?" If this is 
so, the value of the term lies with its rejection and/or improvement of, 
"classical economics." In this respect it seems sensible to try to find 
the features that are common to the work of Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, and 
(perhaps) Mill. Having identified those features, we could proceed to 
compare them with the features of later economics that are opposed to, 
and/or and advancement of, them. 
 
One essential difference, it seems to me, is the emergence of the 
functional concept of the entrepreneur, which led at least some 
distinguished economists (Menger, Davenport, Wicksteed, Knight?) to 
abandon the traditional tripartite classification of the factors of 
production. Whereas classical economics, in this respect, contained 
separate theories of price determination, neoclassical economics was a 
unified theory of price. 
 
Are there other features? 
--  
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]