=============== HES POSTING ========================
Certainly SOMETHING happened to change the way economics
was perceived, how it was taught, and the way research was
conducted after WWII.
And it would seem to fit the definition of a Kuhnian
Paradigm Revolution -- especially in the way it seemed to
obvious to Insiders, so clear -- so suddenly. And also in
the way it fit post-war America's view of itself, and its
view of America's role vis-a-vis the rest of the world.
In part, this was a methodological revolution, perhaps we
could say the take-off curve of a new product made possible
by technological innovations in statistical analysis, and
then exploding with the creation of a specialty called
"econometrics" and a device called the computer.
The advantage of being able to say "Formalist Revolution" is to
be able to give a name to something DIFFERENT -- and as far as
I am concerned, a vast improvement over having few choices in
language other than "post-war mainstream U.S." or "neoclassical"
(but not monetarist neoclassical).
However, there are also disadvantages to using the term
Revolution -- the greatest one being that once you have defined
this Revolution, it becomes difficult to talk about other
trends that preceded it, were contemporaries -- it adds a
category at the same time it pretty effectively slams the
window on other chronologies or typologies. You may give it
too much credit here, too little there.
Here I am at a disadvantage because I cannot find the book title
I am looking for -- two books, actually -- one on Marshall's
thought as a Lakotasian (sp?) shift in a research programme
(and focusing on Marshall rather than Walras as the key) --
the other on how economic history got pushed out of Cambridge
during Marshall's tenure.
They both point to the same conclusion, however: it is
Marshall who popularizes, both with a textbook and as an
academic leader, the narrowing of economics to a study of
prices and quantities in markets; Marshall who saw
mathematical innovation as leading the development of more
sophisticated economic theory.
That kind of throws a monkey wrench into the timing of the
"revolution", though. Rather than an explosion, one would
presume it snuck up bit by bit, as more data became available
but instead of the old empiricist approach, became fodder for
being able to definitively "prove" or "disprove" competing
economic theories.
Samuelson adds Keynes and then wraps it up in a nice package
with the concept of "revealed preference".
But -- wait -- who is who, and which is which?
In my own field, what do I associate formalism with?
Cliometrics. Fogel. Chicago.
But ... Fogel is not Stiglitz. And Coase has made it clear
that he is not Posner.
Even more to ask you here:
If formalism is high math, where does that place us now?
The new highly mathematical models CAN'T BE USED FOR
EMPIRICAL PROOF. They can SUGGEST.
Those out looking for "proof" that the economy always works
best when left to "its" own devices have been PASSED BY THE
MATH.
And the math, I thought, was the essence of the revolution.
Mary Schweitzer
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
