[OPE-L:5749] RE: neo-classical economics

=?iso-8859-1?Q?Abelardo_Mari=F1a_Flores?= (abmf@hp9000a1.uam.mx)
Mon, 24 Nov 1997 13:09:53 -0600

[ show plain text ]

Although the two theories are so different (classical and neoclassical), as Fred's student notices, it is quite curious that Keynes uses the same term "classical school" to refer to Ricardo, James Mill and their predecessor, on the one side, and, as Keynes claims (chapter 1 of The General Theory...) "...those who adopted and perfected Ricardian economic theory...", including J.S. Mill, Marshall, Edgeworth and Pigou, on the other.

De: Claus Germer[SMTP:cmgermer@sociais.ufpr.br]
Enviado el: Lunes 24 de Noviembre de 1997 12:36 PM
Para: Ope-l List members
Asunto: Re: neo-classical economics

Fred wrote:

> Does anyone know the origin of the term "neo-classical" economics?
> A student in my History of Economic Thought class asked me last week:
> "if the two theories are so different (classical and neo-classical), why
> is the later one called 'neo-classical'? Why isn't it called something
> completely different. It is an interesting question and I
> can't remember where the term originated.

According to The New Palgrave Dict. of Ec. the term was first used by
Veblen, in 1900, in an article in the Quarterly J.of Econ, 14, p. 240-69,
'to characterize Marsahll and the M. economics'. However, Veblen did not
have in mind the existence of 'any similarity in theoretical structure'
between M. and classical theories. He was just referring to 'a continuity
with classical economics on the alleged basis of a common utilitarian
approach and the common assumption of a hedonistic psychology'.

Regards, Claus.

Claus Germer
Departamento de Economia
Universidade Federal do Paraná
Rua Dr. Faivre, 405 - 3º andar
80060-140 Curitiba - Paraná

Tel: (041) 362-3038 ext. 2537
(041) 254-3415 Res.