===================== HES POSTING ==================== There seems to be a consensus that there is no generally acceptable definition of Neoclassical Economics. Still, I know some economists who consider themselves to be deep in Neoclassical Economics. They, of course, are not interested in defining it. Who wants to be tied down? Who wants to set up a target for crafty opponents of the cause? I have heard them argue that its best to get undergraduates to DO economics, rather than to have them intellectualize about it by trying to define it. The dominant Neoclassical paradigm is very much alive. Those inside are not interested in defining it. They dont need a definition. Those outside have an interest in showing that there is no such thing. That its a fictive element of the establishment's imaginative propaganda. That Neoclassical Economics is some thing existing in the information environment, it seems to me, is beyond question. It is also beyond question that it is in the interest of many not to define it ..What we need here is not an economist historian, but an historian of Economics, someone skilled in the sociology of knowledge,in the social construction of knowledge. To explain why, to make sense of the fact that, no one wants to say that Neoclassical Economics has a definition. ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]