Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The Death of Neoclassical Economics


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.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

R. Ekelund Jr, and R. Hebert 1997. A History of Economic Theory and Method, 4th ed.New York: McGraw-Hill.

J. R. Hicks 1934. “Leon Walras.” Econometrica 2 (10): 338–48.

J. A. Hobson 1925. “Neo-Classical Economics in Britain.” Political Science Quarterly 40 (09): 337–83.

T. Veblen 1900. “Preconceptions of Economic Science.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 14 (02): 261.

J. Von Neumann 1928Zur Theorie Der Gesellschaftsspiele.” Mathematische Annalen 100: 295320.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of the History of Economic Thought
  • ISSN: 1053-8372
  • EISSN: 1469-9656
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-the-history-of-economic-thought
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 268 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1231 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.