======================== HES POSTING =================== In a message dated 97-08-17 20:07:03 EDT, Pat writes: << Whatever we take "neoclassical economics" to be, don't you think that the first step is to contrast it with "classical economics?" If this is so, the value of the term lies with its rejection and/or improvement of, "classical economics." In this respect it seems sensible to try to find the features that are common to the work of Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, and (perhaps) Mill. Having identified those features, we could proceed to compare them with the features of later economics that are opposed to, and/or and advancement of, them. One essential difference, it seems to me, is the emergence of the functional concept of the entrepreneur, which led at least some distinguished economists (Menger, Davenport, Wicksteed, Knight?) to abandon the traditional tripartite classification of the factors of production. >> The obvious problem here, it would seem, is that many (perhaps most) 'neoclassical' economists _didn't_ and _haven't_ abondon the traditional tripartite classification of the factors of production. Furthermore, as far as 'neoclassical' is distiguished in contemporary discussions from 'Austrian' or 'Marxist' or 'institutionalist' or 'post keynesian', the abandonment of the traditional tripartitie classification of factors of production might in fact be used to distinguish some 'Austrians' from some 'neoclassicals', but the same wouldn't be true in the case of distinguishing, for example, some 'Marxists' from some neoclassicals. And many 'Austrians' share a tripartite division with many 'neoclassicals'. In any case, the extent to which most economists have in fact abandoned the traditional triparte classification of the factors of production is itself controversial, e.g. there are many 'classical' elements remaining in Knight, (as there were in Clark, Marshall, Walras, etc., etc.) which seperate his work on capital theory from that of the most purely marginalist' of all capital theorists, F. A. Hayek. In part, the classification problem remains because the problems in theory remain to be solved -- i.e. the reconciliation of the modern marginal valuation principles with the problems of the valuation of factors of production. A quick and dirty definintion of 'neoclassical' economics which capture the current state of theory would then be: the incomplete economics of those who have accepted marginal valuation principles, but who have not yet been able to free them from incompatible elements from the classical value tradition and the ancient tradition in epistemology. I.e. an economics which accepts marginal valuation, but which hasn't come up with either a satisfactory application of these principles to the valuation of the factors of production -- or a satisfactory explanatory strategy for their use in providing plausible causal explanations for problem raising patterns in our experience. Pat may think that my answer begs the question, but this again would only be an expression of my thesis -- that the definition is not decided, because the theoretical and explanatory issues remain essentially contested and unresolved, even if many if not most in the so-called 'mainstream' have more pressing 'technical' worries to devote their time to. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy MiraCosta College UC-Riverside [log in to unmask] http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage. ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]