Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
7,375
result(s) for
"Neoclassical economics"
Sort by:
A Reflection on Postwar Neoclassical Economics
The theoretical focus of neoclassical economics experienced a significant change in the 1970s–1980s. General equilibrium theory lost its dominant position in theoretical economic studies, with its role of setting the research agenda taken over by what this article calls the “new microeconomic theories,” principally decision theory, game theory, and mechanism design. Mainstream economists, post-Keynesians, and historians of economic thought each give a different explanation of the hows and whys of that change, but all miss some critical methodological implications. That change, as this article discusses, shows that neoclassical economics has turned from “grand theory” toward “small models” with empirically delimited utility and that the ideology of marketism lacks a valid scientific foundation. This interpretation can help illuminate the deeper dynamics of the postwar development of neoclassical economics and provide insights for a new political economy that can come to grips with political-economic practices that cannot be fully grasped by the neoclassical tradition.
Journal Article
From Political Economy to Economics
Economics has become a monolithic science, variously described as formalistic and autistic with neoclassical orthodoxy reigning supreme. So argue Dimitris Milonakis and Ben Fine in this new major work of critical recollection. The authors show how economics was once rich, diverse, multidimensional and pluralistic, and unravel the processes that lead to orthodoxy's current predicament. The book details how political economy became economics through the desocialisation and the dehistoricisation of the dismal science, accompanied by the separation of economics from the other social sciences, especially economic history and sociology. It is argued that recent attempts from within economics to address the social and the historical have failed to acknowledge long standing debates amongst economists, historians and other social scientists. This has resulted in an impoverished historical and social content within mainstream economics.
The book ranges over the shifting role of the historical and the social in economic theory, the shifting boundaries between the economic and the non-economic, all within a methodological context. Schools of thought and individuals, that have been neglected or marginalised, are treated in full, including classical political economy and Marx, the German and British historical schools, American institutionalism, Weber and Schumpeter and their programme of Socialökonomik, and the Austrian school. At the same time, developments within the mainstream tradition from marginalism through Marshall and Keynes to general equilibrium theory are also scrutinised, and the clashes between the various camps from the famous Methodenstreit to the fierce debates of the 1930s and beyond brought to the fore.
The prime rationale underpinning this account drawn from the past is to put the case for political economy back on the agenda. This is done by treating economics as a social science once again, rather than as a posit
eBook
What is this 'school' called neoclassical economics?
What is this school called neoclassical economics? Does it exist? Should it? Where does the term 'neoclassical economics' come from, and is there any connection between any of the current interpretations of the term and its original meaning? How do we make sense of competing current interpretations? Is there a sustainable formulation? These and related questions are raised and answered in an attempt to bring clarity to ongoing economic discussion and debate, thereby to under-labour for a more relevant academic economics discipline.
Journal Article
Foreword Editor‐in‐Chief
Alberto Ruiz has assembled an excellent collection of articles in this issue on an important topic: the limitations of neoclassical economics (NCE). In combination, they show how mainstream economics fails to explain how human wants can be achieved in balance with social and ecological goals. As some authors point out, NCE is not so much wrong as too narrow. It is designed to analyze only those conditions that can be expressed in mathematical terms. As a result, there are numerous practical problems that remain implacable when forced onto the Procrustean bed of formal theory.
Journal Article
Where economics went wrong : Chicago's abandonment of classical liberalism
Milton Friedman once predicted that advances in scientific economics would resolve debates about whether raising the minimum wage is good policy. Decades later, Friedman's prediction has not come true. In Where Economics Went Wrong, David Colander and Craig Freedman argue that it never will. Why? Because economic policy, when done correctly, is an art and a craft. It is not, and cannot be, a science. The authors explain why classical liberal economists understood this essential difference, why modern economists abandoned it, and why now is the time for the profession to return to its classical liberal roots. Carefully distinguishing policy from science and theory, classical liberal economists emphasized values and context, treating economic policy analysis as a moral science where a dialogue of sensibilities and judgments allowed for the same scientific basis to arrive at a variety of policy recommendations. Using the University of Chicago--one of the last bastions of classical liberal economics--as a case study, Colander and Freedman examine how both the MIT and Chicago variants of modern economics eschewed classical liberalism in their attempt to make economic policy analysis a science. By examining the way in which the discipline managed to lose its bearings, the authors delve into such issues as the development of welfare economics in relation to economic science, alternative voices within the Chicago School, and exactly how Friedman got it wrong.
BOOK
SENTIMENTS
This paper develops a new theory of fluctuations—one that helps accommodate the notions of \"animal spirits\" and \"market sentiment\" in unique-equilibrium, rational-expectations, macroeconomic models. To this goal, we limit the communication that is embedded in a neoclassical economy by allowing trading to be random and decentralized. We then show that the business cycle may be driven by a certain type of extrinsic shocks which we call sentiments. These shocks formalize shifts in expectations of economic activity without shifts in the underlying preferences and technologies; they are akin to sunspots, but operate in unique-equilibrium models. We further show how communication may help propagate these shocks in a way that resembles the spread of fads and rumors and that gives rise to boom-and-bust phenomena. We finally illustrate the quantitative potential of our insights within a variant of the RBC model.
Journal Article