=============== 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]