=================== HES POSTING =================== 
 
I have come to believe that the term neoclassical is no longer a useful 
term to capture the ideas that are taught to economists in graduate 
school.  What is taught, and what is believed by the majority of 
economists,  is much more of a pragmatic application of ideas about 
individual self-interest interacting into some result. Most policy work is 
econometrically based data mining, not application of theory. 
 
The strong arguments that held the neoclassical economic paradigm 
together theoretically have been eliminated and replaced with a pragmatism 
about policy. Game theory with no definite result has replaced any 
theoretical defense of the competitive model in standard graduate micro.  
In macro there is a mess, but what remains in the majority of schools is 
essentially data analysis with slight modifications due to theoretical 
preconceptions.  So while I agree with Drue that the U.S. institutional 
structure does not approximate "the neoclassical paradigm" I  also agree 
with Robin   that  the mainstream economic approach is kept because it 
sheds some light, or seems to, on economic policy.   
 
I see far less ideological content than does Drue and Joan Robinson. The 
reality is that the majority of economists I talk to--including the high 
up ones--are liberal. They favor redistribution and are open to state 
action if they believe it will be beneficial. Look who supports the 
economists for peace movement.  Libertarians and conservatives feel as 
disenfranchised as radicals (well, almost).  Clearly, the 
Samuelson-Solow-Arrow nexus is liberal.   
 
Liberals are, by nature, hesitant about significantly changing 
institutions which leads to a pragmatism about policy and a hesitancy 
about changing institutions. This makes their ideas fit in well with   
political forces which are also hesitant about changing institutions.     
 
The few people who care about internal coherence of the broader 
paradigmatic approach are exploring other options--that's why complexity 
theory at Santa Fe was supported by Arrow.  It has not been accepted 
because it has not yet had the major insight or event that overcomes the 
inertia associated with the old approach.   
 
I think what has caused the problem is the combination of theory and 
policy--something Marshall warned against. The only economists who can 
really delve into theory in a neutral way are those who keep themselves 
out of any political fray.  The combination of theory and policy advocacy 
makes it seem that the policy arguments are based in theory when in fact 
they are based in a pragmatism. Most economists simply aren't much 
interested in theory.   
 
The rise of the support of the market among these pragmatic economists and 
among economists has more to do with recent history--the market seems to 
be working--than it does with theory. The fall of communism, the success 
of market oriented development plans, and the continued strength of the 
U.S. economy has  led to the pro-market mood of the country.  
 
David Colander 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]