===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
Ross B. Emmett wrote: 
 
> 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. 
 
> Of course, there need be no special/unique relation 
> between that definition of "classical" economics and the writings any 
> particular economist. 
 
I agree with Ross here. I would add, however, that collective terms such 
as "classical" and "neoclassical" to refer to dead economists are means 
of grouping economists together according to their similarities, not of 
studying a particular economist. 
 
To add some strength to my earlier point, think of the collective terms 
"institutional" and "neo-institutional," "Keynesian" and 
"neo-Keynesian," and "Austrian" and "neo-Austrian." Would anyone claim 
that these terms are useless in classifying groups of economists?  
--  
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]