Can neoclassical economics be social economics?
The question is both intriguing and important but, it is argued, impossible of a conclusive single-clear cut answer. Much depends on the specification of each of the schools and of what economics as intellectual inquiry is all about. Among other points, it is recognized that neoclassical economics is already a form of social economics; that both forms of economics are sets of tools and stories and not Truth; that the two schools can be seen as either contradictory or supplementary; that the economy is so multifaceted as to give rise to and sustain divergent sets of tools and stories; that there is a difference between the formal content of neoclassicism and what neoclassisists accept; that both schools have to be understood within a larger context; and that neither school has a single valuation agenda.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
Volume (Year): 26 (1996)
Issue (Month): 1 (09)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
Web page: http://socialeconomics.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://link.springer.com/journal/12143|