===================== 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]