| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 453.11 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
This article addresses the origins of the term “neoclassical” economics, and the subsequent use of the term. It is argued that the present use of the term “neoclassical” economics is different from its original meaning when it was first introduced by Thorstein Veblen, who used it to denote a methodological inconsistency between vision and method, as Tony Lawson argues. I also argue here that the original meaning of the term, and its present use, are both contradictory with the original meaning of “classical political economy”. In fact, if we follow the original meaning of the term “classical political economy”, as a surplus approach concerned with the reproduction and distribution of the economic surplus, we find that many of those who are critical of “neoclassical economics” are actually in line with the classical perspective, to the extent that they also develop a surplus approach.
Description
Keywords
Classical Neoclassical closed system surplus marginalism
Pedagogical Context
Citation
Martins, N. O. (2015). Why is this ‘school’ called neoclassical economics? Classicism and neoclassicism in historical context. Working Papers: Economics. N.º 1, 24 p.