Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T12:49:45.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Death of Neoclassical Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

David Colander
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The term “neoclassical economics” was born in 1900; in this paper I am proposing economist-assisted terminasia; by the powers vested in me as president of the History of Economics Society, I hereby declare the term neoclassical economics dead. Let me be clear about what I am sentencing to death—it is not the content of neoclassical economics. As I will discuss below, it is difficult to determine what that content is, and even if I wanted to kill the content, I have no role in determining content. The role of historians of thought is to record, not determine, content. What I am declaring dead is the term.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 2000 , pp. 127 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2000

References

REFERENCES

Aspromourgos, Tony. 1986. “On the Origin of the Term ‘Neoclassical.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 10 (30): 265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger. 1985. A History of Modern Economic Analysis. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1985. Economic Theory in Retrospect. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1998. “The Formalist Revolution or What Happened to Orthodox Economics After World War II.” 98/10 Discussion Paper in Economics. University of Exeter (October).Google Scholar
Brue, S. L. 1994. The Evolution of Economic Thought, 5th ed.New York: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Colander, D. and Landreth, H. 1994. History of Economic Thought, 3rd ed.Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Ekelund, R. Jr, and Hebert, R. 1997. A History of Economic Theory and Method, 4th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fayazmanesh, Sasan. 1998. “On Veblen's Coining of the Term ‘Neoclassical’.” In Fayazmanesh, Sasan and Tool, Marc R., eds., Institutionalist Method and Value: Essays in Honour of Paul Dale Bush, vol. 1. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1932. “Marginal Productivity and the Principle of Variation.” Economica 12 (02): 79–88.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1934. “Leon Walras.” Econometrica 2 (10): 338–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1939. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1983. Classics and Moderns: Collected Essays on Economic Theory, vol. III. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hobson, J. A. 1925. “Neo-Classical Economics in Britain.” Political Science Quarterly 40 (09): 337–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1897. The Scope and Method of Political Economy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Machlup, Fritz. 1963. Essays on Economics Semantics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1847. The Misery of Philosophy.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1967. Types of Economic Theory, 2 vols., edited by Dorfman, Joseph. New York: Kelley.Google Scholar
Niehans, Jürg. 1990. A History of Economic Theory: Classic Contributions, 1720–1980. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Roll, E. 1938. A History of Economic Thought. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1942.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1955. Economics: An Introductory Analysis, 3rd ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1954. A History of Economic Analysis, edited by Schumpeter, E. B.. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Screpanti, E. and Zamagni, S.. 1993. An Outline of the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Solow, R. M. 1997. “How Did Economics Get That Way and What Way Did It Get?” Daedalus 126 (Winter): 39.Google Scholar
Spiegel, H. W. 1991. The Growth of Economic Thought, 3rd ed.London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. J. 1941. Production and Distribution Theories. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. 1900. “Preconceptions of Economic Science.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 14 (02): 261.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. 1928 “Zur Theorie Der Gesellschaftsspiele.” Mathematische Annalen 100: 295–320.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O.. 1944. Theory of Games and Economics Behavior. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Woodward, Michael. 1991. “Self-fulfilling Expectations and Fluctuations in Aggregate Demand.” In Mankiw, G. and Romer, D., eds., New Keynesian Economics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Yang, Xiaokai, and Ng, Siang. 1994. “Specialization and Division of Labor: A Survey.” Seminar Paper 24/95, Department of Economics, Monash University (12).Google Scholar