Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Fri Mar 31 17:19:18 2006 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
=============== HES POSTING ==========================
Roy Weintraub:
Labels are often ambiguous and controversial and this especially applies to the
claim that some series of events or developments qualify for the title
"revolution". (e.g. was there an Atlantic Revolution at the end of the eighteenth
century or is this false aggregation?; is everything in Ricardo?; or
Marshall?; what was the Keynesian revolution? whose Keynesian revolution? is everything
to be treated episodically because the thematic
approach is too crude?).
There are several layers of meaning in quite simple statements: for example
why have there been so many references to Humpty Dumpty in academic disputes
(and to what purpose) since Dennis Robertson (1926) first illustrated economics with
quotes from Lewis Carrol. Because it is a perceived, by the user, to be useful
rhetorical device with several layers of meaning. At one level, the user is
informing the audience that he is a literary figure of great breadth and
erudition; simultaneously the person on the receiving end of this tired
cliche is portrayed as a fat, flabby, pathetic character who must under no circumstances
be listened to. Those in the econometrics movement tended to regard their
economic statistics competitors in this light ("measurement without theory" ...
etc).
Should the econometrics movement and the Walrasians revival from the 1930s be classed
together? If these movements occured simultaneously, but unrelatedly, then they
there are not compelling reasons for considering them as part of a joint
development, worthy of joint consideration. This is a big topic, but there
are several common features which immeadiately jump to mind.
1. They jointly created the prevalent research program in academic economics.
2. They had contempt for their opponents who were soon to become their
predecessors (Marshallians and economic statisticians). They effected a
successful language revolution so that a Marshallian seeking to redirect
economics was obliged to use Walrasian language ("the natural-rate of
unemployment ... ground out by the Walrasian equations").
3. They had great confidence in their own "modern" tools and techniques:
'Before us there was (largely) the deluge of Marshallian waffle or non-rigourous
statistics'.
4. They thought they were providing some "final" answers.
5. The econometricians and the Walrasians were often the same people.
6. They tended to see themselves as revolutionaries; this fostered a Year Zero
mentality.
Given time I am sure I could extend this list. Whether this should be
called a joint revolution is a matter of judgement and I am genuinely
interested in the case against. I am open-minded about it and I am
prepared to be persuaded that I have illigimately aggregated two
unrelated and separate phenomena. I am aware that the term "revolution"
carries baggage; my judgement so far, is that it also conveys some
insight. I am agnostic about whether the term "formalist" is helpful
(thanks for the Golland reference, which unfortunately is not in the UWO
library but I shall track it down; maybe I shall change my mind after
reading it. That is what being a scholar is all about).
Robert Leeson
University of Western Ontario
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
|
|