What are the grounds upon which Gintis rejects Marxism or other heterodox alternatives? His article is brimming over with ad hominem arguments or what he surely intends as such. If an economics is based upon philosophy why should that invalidate it. And what economics is based on philosophy? NC seems based upon what might be called the philosophy of possessive individualism. Old warmed over theories that have not passed the test of time! Well for a long time neo-classical economics was precisely such a warmed over theory. Now social conditions make it relevant as an ideology. It is hardly surprising that a ruling class ideological construct with mathematics replacing theology should be a great bulwark of the ruling classes.
--- Julio Huato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [ From Gintis' web site: > http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gintis/ ] > > Review of Edward Fullbrook, A Guide to What's Wrong > with Economics > By Herbert Gintis > > In June 2000, several Parisian economics students > circulated a > petition calling for the reform of their economics > curriculum. Their > complaint was the inability of the neoclassical > economics they were > studying to satisfy their need for a deep > understanding of the > operation of real-life economies. They called for a > reform of the > university curriculum that would tolerate analytical > diversity and > foster critical dialogue across contrasting > approaches to economics. > Their demand was taken up by large numbers of > students, and a similar > demand was formulated by Ph.D. students at Cambridge > University in the > UK the next year. This reform movement has grown in > Europe, under the > rubric of "post-autistic economics." This volume > presents their case, > but with voices of professional economists rather > than students. > > My interest in this book and this movement stems > from my life-long > battle against neoclassical orthodoxy. My conclusion > from reading this > edited volume is that the post-autistic economics > critique is > incapable of leading to positive change in how > economics is done and > taught. The central critique is that neoclassical > economics does not > describe real-world economies, and must be replaced > by or supplemented > with other approaches. This is just wrong. While the > elementary > courses are far from the real world, advanced > courses in such areas as > labor, international finance, macroeconomic policy, > economic > development, law and economics, environmental > economics, and so on, > are quite real-world. If an undergraduate students > left with a degree > in economics that allowed them to understand The > Economist and the > Journal of Economic Perspectives, the level of > economic awareness in > the world would be considerably higher. If the > undergraduate > curriculum does not bring students to this level, > the curriculum is, > to my mind, faulty. Perhaps less stress on arcane > theories that are > relevant only to professional economists should be > replaced by a more > historical, institutional, and hands-on approach to > microeconomic and > macroeconomic issues. But, this is a critique of > pedagogy, not of > economic theory. > > A more gutsy critique would be to say that > neoclassical theory is > incorrect, not simply "unrealistic," and to provide > alternatives > precisely where the theory is incorrect. Moreover, > the critique should > focus on the professional level of neoclassical > economics, not the > models that are presented in undergraduate and > introductory graduate > courses. I would like to see an alternative > curriculum, not just some > pap about letting 100 flowers bloom and the need for > real-world > economics. > > Marxism, Keynesianism, Institutionalism, > Syndicalism, Austrian > economics, and other alternatives to the > neoclassical model all > developed strongly for a while and then foundered. > They certainly do > not present analytically interesting alternatives to > neoclassical > economics, in my opinion. I do not want to suggest > that neoclassical > economics is the only credible starting point for > serious economic > analysis, but I am not satisfied with old, > warmed-over theories that > have not stood the test of time.The pleas for > democracy, toleration, > and pluralism by the "heterodox" is simply an > admission that they > can't win the intellectual battle by having better > theories, only by > having more troupes. > > Perhaps more damning, the authors seem completely > unaware of > contemporary economic theoretical research, which > addresses many of > the serious problems with neoclassical theory. There > is a short piece > on behavioral economics, which has been one of the > most vibrant areas > in economics over the past 25 years, but the author > assumes that > behavioral economics is an alternative to > neoclassical economics. > Rather, it is a complement to economic theory and a > source of > empirical data that can be used to generate better > models. Behavioral > economics uses decision theory and game theory to > critique the Homo > economicus of traditional economic theory, but the > profession is > responding by revising Homo economicus, not by > rejecting behavioral > economics (see recent papers in Econometrica, the > Quarterly Journal of > Economics, and other journals). > > Post-autistic economics ignores the innovative work > of Ernst Fehr, > Abijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo, Colin Camerer, > Samuel Bowles, George > Loewenstein, Daniel Kahneman, Benoit Mandelbrot, > Edward Glaeser, David > Laibson, Matthew Rabin, Bruno Frey, Elinor Ostrom, > Barkley Rosser, > Armin Falk, Simon Gaechter, Jean Tirole, Aldo > Rustichini, and many > others. It ignores neuroeconomics, econophysics, and > the notion of the > economy as a complex system, with its stress on > agent-based modeling. > These researchers transform analytical economics to > meet the empirical > challenges posed by new data. Some of them are > extremely critical of > neoclassical theory, and others are a bit more > tolerant. Unlike > leaders of the post-autistic school, however, they > do not urge a > retreat to philosophy or some defunct 20th century > doctrine. > > The informal buzz about neoclassical economics is > that it is > conservative and necessarily supplies right-wing > answers to policy > issues. This is incorrect. Neoclassical economics > suggests the various > implications of different policies and leaves it to > policy makers to > weight the costs and benefits according to their > values. For instance, > neoclassical theory suggests that raising the > minimum wage will lead > to a decline in the demand for low-wage labor unless > the local demand > effects of the higher wage in communities offsets > the labor market > substitution effect. What is wrong with that > argument? Moreover, the > theory suggests that the adverse demand for labor > effect could be > completely offset by a wage subsidy to employers or > to the workers > themselves (EITC is just this). > > The gossip also is that neoclassical economists are > all conservatives, > so the theory must be wrong. In fact, neoclassical > economics is > completely compatible with state ownership of the > means of production, > and other socialist institutions. This follows from > the Fundamental > Theorem of Welfare Economics, and was used by Oskar > Lange and other > socialists to critique Hayek and von Misses in the > great socialism > debates of the 1930. Unfortunately, the Fundamental > Theorem is one of > the more monstrously incorrect parts of the > neoclassical edifice. > === message truncated === Blog: http://kenthink7.blogspot.com/index.html Blog: http://kencan7.blogspot.com/index.html
