me: > this mostly seems to be a matter of behavioral (a.k.a. experimental) > economics. It's a good thing, but it must be stressed that behavioral > economics almost never gets beyond the individualistic approach of > neoclassical economics.
Max: > How would you classify models that Bowles talks about in *Microeconomics* > where there are individual utility functions, emphasis plural, with > interactive features? Bowles has always been outside the mainstream. I doubt that he has much influence in the profession. > Or models that incorporate game theory. most textbook game theory stops with the prisoners' dilemma. At higher levels, it seems to be mostly a matter of the search for unique equilibria (see the book by Hargreaves Heap & Varoufakis). In general, I think that is possible to do good economics and even good political economy within the broadly-defined "big tent" of neoclassical economics. However, the quasi-Darwinian process that shapes academic institutions and individuals over time (within the larger context of capitalism) encourages the persistence of social dominance of the profession by a much narrower version of economics, including game theory. The disproportionate influence of what I call the "Ekon" (market cheerleaders of either the neoclassical or "Austrian" sort) will also likely persist, especially since they tend to tell business what it wants to hear. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
