Can I ask a question?

[Michael]

This thread is for anyone to post questions about economics matters that they ae curious about, but might not want to start a whole thead for the question.

You are of course encouraged to start your own thread, but if you are too shy and just want to ask a quick question, this is the place for it. Myself or some other economics junky will do their best to reply to your questions. :)

[Michael]

"classical economic theory" and "neoclassical economic theory"

I've read about a half-dozen academic economics papers in the last few days and I keep encountering the same two terms used over and over again - apparently or seemingly interchangeably. I'm curious if anyone here can shed some light on the mystery of the meaning of these terms.

Suffice it to say that all of the papers I've read where the two terms are used, agree that Adam Smith represents "classical economic theory". From my university days in economics, I never encountered the term "neoclassical" at all. Everything from Smith to Keynes was considered "classical economic theory". What I'm saying here is that I've never encountered this "neoclassical economic theory" term before the last few years. I honestly haven't a clue what distinction is being drawn here.

Speaking of Keynes, he appears to be classified as "classical economic theorist" as much as he is referenced as part of "neoclassical economic theory", depending on the paper or the author.

And "neoclassical economic theory" either begins in 1925 or 1945.

I have no clue what the 'content' distinction that is being asserted here.

As a sidenote, I might add that from all my readings in economic theory, I detect no substantive paradigm shifts at all in the field from the beginning of Adam Smith in 1776 until the 1980s when traditional or classical economic theory seems to go out the window and is replaced by a bunch of mathematical models that are only as good as the assumptions they assume and hide from view. Disputes in the field seem to be increasingly all about rival mathematical models and assumptions.

(Btw, I wouldn't be surprised if the distinction is a meaningless one - "post-blank" is a popular claim or title for every new pet theory in a whole host of academic disciplines)

So does anyone have a clue about the difference between "classical economic theory" and "neoclassical economic theory"?

[Michael]

I spent a few hours last night reading up on this topic and its a mess. Apparently Marx is considered to be part of both "classical economics" and "neoclassical economics", though how this works is completely beyond me. :ummm:

Apparently "neoclassical economics" begins in 1870, 1905, 1925 or with Keynes in 1946.

About the only thing I can really nail down here is that "neoclassical economics" is where the "rational actor" hypothesis seems to be raised to a point of doctrine.

Needless to say, I suspect that my own approach to economic theory leaves me firmly in the classical camp as I fundamentally reject the thesis of humans acting as rational. Humans may act rationally sometimes, maybe even most times, but absolutely not always. I firmly hold that any theory predicated on the logic of human rationality is doomed to fail.

I'm beginning to think that the term "neo-" applied to anything is just hogwash. Neo-liberalism is a term that has never made much sense and likewise with neo-conservative. These terms obfusicate as much as they claim, are inconsistently applied and often have identical meanings to the "non-neo" versions. I suspect the same is true of "neo-classical". Alternatively, these are just pet labels thrown around by a bunch of academic insiders playing office politics, predicated on obscure points of distinction that are lost outside of the strict context of reference (which is rarely given) - kinda like the way the field of literature uses the terms "modern" and "post-modern" for some distinction from a century ago - then confuse everyone by calling anything that is newly published, "modern literature", regardless of where it stands on their 'modern vs post-modern' distinction. Seems like every new novel published is both modern and post-modern at the same time. :ummm:

[Greendruid]

I'm beginning to think that the term "neo-" applied to anything is just hogwash.

I'd like to interject here with a completely unrelated comment, at least insofar as your question is about economics. The current re-birth of paganism is often referred to as neo-paganism for the simple reason that an unbroken chain of followers to a paganism that was part of the original pre-Christian (usually European) worship of polytheistic pantheons does not exist and the rediscovery of this way of believing is "neo" to a post-Christian world. The current versions of paganism are, in large part, reinterpretations and reconstructions of something that was largely lost. Given that, I agree that most sweeping designations and applications of the prefix "neo" are poorly used and inappropriate.

[Lasher]

I'd like to interject here with a completely unrelated comment, at least insofar as your question is about economics. The current re-birth of paganism is often referred to as neo-paganism for the simple reason that an unbroken chain of followers to a paganism that was part of the original pre-Christian (usually European) worship of polytheistic pantheons does not exist and the rediscovery of this way of believing is "neo" to a post-Christian world. The current versions of paganism are, in large part, reinterpretations and reconstructions of something that was largely lost. Given that, I agree that most sweeping designations and applications of the prefix "neo" are poorly used and inappropriate.
Even neo-con?

[Greendruid]

Even neo-con?

Especially