======================= HES POSTING ================= On Mon, 11 Aug 1997 16:39:34 -0500 (EST) andrew kliman <[log in to unmask]> 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? This is a question about the use of a word. Such questions don't have to have a clear answer. For example, give me a simple definition of 'Pacific rim cooking' or 'liberalism'. It is rare for economists to define themselves as 'neoclassical' - mostly they just think they are doing economics. The term is most often used by Marxists, post-Keynesians, etc. as a term of abuse. When used in this way it is not often defined clearly. The implicit definition is often absurd - something like 'the belief that perfect competition, full information, general equilibrium models describe reality and that outcomes are always Pareto optimal provided governments do nothing', a belief that no-one has ever held. This usage can be ignored by serious people. I prefer to say 'mainstream', because that implies something vague and changing. There is no doubt that the majority of economists share a toolkit and a set of ways of tackling problems, but they use them in varied ways, which change over time. The reality is vague and changing. 'Neoclassical' might be a useful term among historians of economics (though I think it may be irredeemably contaminated with irrelevant overtones) but its meaning must be explained when it is used, since it (clearly) doesn't have a single agreed meaning. How it functions in any particular historical interpretation is likely to depend heavily on the overall framework of analysis used. Best to avoid the word. ---------------------- Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) University of Bristol, Department of Economics 8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]