Hostname: page-component-7d8f8d645b-xs5cw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-05-28T18:06:47.459Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English

The Death of Neoclassical Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

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

Extract

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

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, J. 1928 “Zur Theorie Der Gesellschaftsspiele.” Mathematische Annalen 100: 295–320.CrossRefGoogle 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