Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:20:47.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Emperor's Clothes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

John B. Davis
John B. Davis
Affiliation:
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

David Colander argued to this Society two years ago that the term “neoclassical economics” ought to be declared dead (Colander 2000). I concur with him on the verdict, but do so for different reasons. Colander's argument was that neoclassicism possessed six primary attributes, and much of mainstream economics cannot be characterized in these terms. My argument is simpler. It is that neoclassical economics was primarily a theory of the human individual in economic life (albeit a flawed one), but contemporary mainstream economics does not possess a theory of the human individual. This conclusion may not surprise those who have reflected on the rise of formalism in economics in the postwar period. But for two reasons I think it important to emphasize the disappearance of a theory of the individual from economics. First, because neoclassicism implemented and defended for nearly a century one particular philosophical conception of the individual central to western thought since the Enlightenment, the abandonment of this commitment by mainstream economics is an important part of our understanding of its evolution and its relation to social thinking generally. Second, the demise of the individual in mainstream economics is also significant because, having abandoned the individual, mainstream economics is no longer capable of offering a defense of the individual in contemporary society. Indeed its project, I will suggest, is in important respects anti-individualist. It may be naïve on my part to think contemporary society still engaged in a defense of the individual. Nonetheless, I hold that thinking about the individual remains fundamental to how many people think about the social world, and that consequently mainstream economics' abandonment of the individual may render it historically irrelevant, perhaps contributing to its fragmentation and dissolution as an identifiable approach in economics. Thus the important conclusion to draw may not be Colander's: that we have seen the death of neoclassical economics. It may be that at issue today is the death of mainstream economics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 2002 , pp. 141 - 154
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2002

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

Anderson, E. 2001. “Unstrapping the Straitjacket of ‘Preference’: A Comment on Amartya Sen's Contributions to Philosophy and Economics.” Economics and Philosophy 17: 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, C. 1948. The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-century Philosophers. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, G. 1965. “A Theory of the Allocation of Time.” Economic Journal 65: 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colander, D. 2000. “The Death of Neoclassical Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (2): 127–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coats, A. 2000. “The Progress of Heterodox Economics.” In Garrouste, P. and Ionnides, S., eds., Evolution and Path-dependence in Economic Ideas. Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cowen, T. 1993. “The Scope and Limits of Preference Sovereignty.” Economics and Philosophy 9: 253–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. Forthcoming. The Theory of the Individual in Economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Etzioni, A. 1988. The Moral Dimension: Toward A New Economics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1949. “The Marshallian Demand Curve.” Journal of Political Economy 57: 463–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1989. On Social Facts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 1998. “The Patrons of Economics in a Time of Transformation.” In Morgan, M. and Rutherford, M., eds., From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Hands, D. 2001. Reflection without Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2000a. “Darwin, Veblen and the Problem of Causality in Economics.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. 2000b. “Structures and Institutions: Reflections on Institutionalism, Structuration Theory and Critical Realism.” Unpublished.Google Scholar
Kavka, G. 1991. “Is Individual Choice Less Problematic than Collective Choice?” Economics and Philosophy 7 (1): 143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, T. 1997. Economics and Reality. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. 1689. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, edited by Nidditch, P.H.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. 2001. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, P. and Hands, D.. 1998. “A Paradox of Budgets: The Postwar Stabilization of American Neoclassical Demand Theory.” In Morgan, M. and Rutherford, M., eds., From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 260–92.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. and Rutherford, M., eds. 1998. From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Oinas, P. 1997. “On the Socio-Spatial Embeddedness of Business Firms.” Erkunde, Archiv Fůr Wissenschaftliche Geographie 51: 23–32.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. New York: Rinehart.Google Scholar
Polanyi, K. 1968. “Anthropology and Economic Theory.” In Fried, M., ed., Readings in Anthropology. NY: Thomas Y. Crowell, pp. 215–38.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 2nd edition. London: Macmillan, 1935.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rutherford, M. 1994. Institutions in Economics: The New and the Old Institutionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1938. “A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer Behavior.” Economica 5: 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1948. “Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed Preference.” Economica 15: 243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sent, E-M. 1997. “Sargent Versus Simon: Bounded Rationality Unbound.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 21 (3): 323–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. 1776. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Cause of The Wealth of Nations, edited by Campbell, R. and Skinner, A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, G. 1952. The Theory of Price, revised edition. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. and Becker, G. 1977. “De gustibus non est disputandum.” American Economic Review 67: 76–90.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 1995. The Importance of Us: A Philosophical Study of Basic Social Notions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar