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