==================== HES POSTING ==================== Some belated further comments, with respect to comments from Colander & Gunning 1. The original question from Cullenberg related to "the origin, and development of, the rise to dominance in U.S. especially of neoclassical economics in graduate education". Gunning hypothesizes as to the reasons for its origins in the US. My difference relates to the significance of the school in the early part of the century - my reading indicates that (by contrast with England) neoclassical practitioners were not a major force until after World War II. Others, longer in the tooth and more deeply versed in institutional history might want to offer an opinion on what still remains unclarified in the discussion. 2. a propos Colander's propositions, it seems to me that: a. the post-WWII attachment to neoclassical economics is not synonymous with individual's political preferences or how they vote. The 'Samuelson-Solow-Arrow' nexus is not liberal (nor any part of the political spectrum); it's depoliticised techniques. Samuelson's 1947 Foundations is a classic elaboration of the neoclassical conceptual apparatus. Many economists appear to be happy to live in separate compartments; their views on politics can differ markedly from what they would prefer or are prepared to tolerate in the syllabus. b. neoclassical economics is not a useful analytical structure for the comprehension of 'market' economies. The defence of market economies is a separate issue from the defence of neoclassical economics in the syllabus and as an appropriate 'research programme'. Schumpeter was offering this point decades ago, mostly notably in Capitalism Socialism and Democracy, and his credentials are impeccable. Why marginalise the Institutionalists? They were trying both to criticise and reform (and thus ultimately defend) the 'market economy' as they interpreted it. For example, Commons (Legal Foundations ...) thought he was dealing explicitly with property rights etc whereas the neoclassical tradition merely takes it all for granted. Superior treastments of 'the market mechanism' are now occurring outside economics, by default. HES had a discussion about precisely this issue in the middle of 1998, discussing the Polanyi heritage, etc. In short, regardless of economists' politics and the considerable merits of the market-based economic system, we still have yet to get to the bottom of the attraction of neoclassical economics. Game theory has certainly taken off, not least because it combines more robust environmental assumptions with economists' attractions to methodological individualism, assumed self-interest, and instrumental rationality. But game theory doesn't deliver the determinism that has made neoclassical economics so attractive (part of the reason why Nash symmetry has been so appealing to game theorists themselves). Determinism and its close relative, equilbrium, are still there in the interstices of the respectable discourse of economists. The attraction to neoclassical economics in the syllabus and as a research programme needs to be explained not by the political perspectives of economists nor by the merits of 'real world' market economies but by factors relating to its intrinsic substance. ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]