===================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
Andrew Kliman wrote:  
> The discussion of "the neoclassical position" concerning self-interest 
raises 
> what is, for me at least, an interesting problem:  What makes a position 
> (theory, model, etc.) neoclassical? 
 
And then went onto speculate about various possibilities for  
circumscribing Neo-Classical economics. 
 
I can see the usefulness for HES of a discussion of the taxonomic  
details of what constitutes, historically and now, 'neo-classical'  
economics in contrast to 'Austrian' economics, '(post-)Keynesian'  
economics, etc.. 
 
But what concerns me more now is the disingenuous implicit  denial of  
of any discernible core of economic orthodoxy, that is almost made  
explicit in, for example, Anthony Brewer's response to Andrew's post.  
The reason that this is of concern is because of the (no doubt  
entirely unintended ...) efficacy of this disappearing trick for  
gate-keeping purposes. If any general (say philosophical or  
methodological) critique of orthodoxy is mounted that is *not*  
explicit about its object, then it can be dismissed on that account.  
And any such critique that does attempt a general taxonomic  
description can be slighted on the basis that is has inaccurately  
identified the core tenets of orthodoxy - or that no such core  
exists. It is this latter, I would speculate, that accounts in part  
for the inadequate engagement of orthodox economics (come on out, you  
know who you are!) and economic methodology with Daniel Hausman's  
(1992) *The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics*. 
 
In Part I of this book, as I am sure most subscribers to this list  
will know, Hausman identifies Rational Choice Theory + Partial  
(Marshallian) and General Equilibrium modelling as the core of  
orthodoxy.  Now this is not perfect, and may (now that Macroeconomic  
orthodoxy has shifted somewhat from its insistence on  
'choice-theoretic' foundations) have a slight microeconomic bias.  
Nevertheless, it captures a large chunk of the shared baggage that is  
stored in the left-luggage lockers of current mainstream economics  
textbooks, at every level. In particular, however useful and  
interesting in their own right, developments such as the recovery of  
game theory, and its application to Industrial Organization, contract  
theory, principal-agent models etc. etc., do not transcend, but  
rather rest on, the conceptualisations and techniques of this core.  
There is some genuine disequilibrium macrodynamics about, but it is  
definitely *not* part of the orthodoxy. Of course there is also a fair  
bit of joyous. self-proclaimed 'measurement without theory', but that  
is, thereby (!) not in the *theoretical* core (although as often as  
not its emancipation from theoretical concepts is, anyway, only skin  
deep). 
 
So what do I want? Well only that well-founded general criticisms of  
economic orthodoxy - whether mounted from one of the great  
heterodoxies (Austrian, post-Keynesian or Marxist perspectives) or  
from History or Philosophy - be engaged with. This would require that  
any assertion that, whilst they may apply (have applied?) to some now  
superseded historical core, they did not hit home against, say, Game  
Theory-IO, be backed up by argument and evidence that this proclaimed  
saviour is not dependent on the allegedly obsolescent orthodox core. 
 
I have met so many bright and motivated students who felt that they  
were repeatedly required to 'pay their dues' again and again by not  
only mastering, but actually doing original work at the  
ever-expanding technical frontier of orthodox economic modelling,  
before being allowed to 'play the blues' and get down to serious  
theoretical criticism of orthodoxy. Too often the result is that they  
either quit economics in favour of another social science, or perhaps  
philosophy, or they put aside the critical enthusiams of their  
'youth' and immerse themselves in orthodoxy's 'normal' science.  
Neither of these consequences can be good for the health of the  
discipline, I would suggest. 
 
Michael Williams  
[log in to unmask] 
Department of Economics, School of Social Sciences 
De Montfort University           
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]