Neoclassical Economics: The Need for a Reconstruction

Onye, Kenneth U. (2014): Neoclassical Economics: The Need for a Reconstruction.

Abstract

This paper examines the case being made by the Real World Economics Movement (RWEM) against the prevailing mainstream economics, including the lack of realism in the teaching of economics resulting from uncontrolled formulation and use of abstract mathematical models that lack empirical validity, the lack of pluralism of approach to economic inquiry, and the basic matter of upside-down application of mathematics in economics. It undertakes a critical examination of the key message and major proposals of RWEM, and goes on to show how they can be harnessed to enhance our understanding and explanation of economic realities. The paper draws attention to the fact that neoclassical economic theories has been inhibited by its ahistorical approach to economic inquiry and abstract formalistic methodology which has made it provide very limited understanding of the complex real world economic phenomena. It, therefore, calls for fundamental reform – in the content, structure and delivery – of economics curricula that universities currently offer and teach students.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Neoclassical economics, RWEM, Economics curricula, Economic theories
• Subjects: A - General Economics and Teaching > A2 - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925 > B13 - Neoclassical through 1925 (Austrian, Marshallian, Walrasian, Stockholm School)

References

Akpakpan, E. B. (1999). The Economy: Towards a New type of Economics. Port Harcourt: Belpot (Nig.) Co.

Blaug, M. (1983). The Methodology of Economics. London: Cambridge University. Beker, V. A. (2013). The Experience of Three Crises: The Argentine Default, American Subprime Meltdown and European Debt Mess. Real-world Economics Review, 65.

Eichners, A. S. (1983). Why Economics Is Not Yet a Science. Journal of Economic Issues, 17(2), 507-520.

Fullbrook, E.(Ed.) (2003). The Crisis in Economics: The Post-autistic Economics Movement: The first 600 days. London: Routledge.

Fullbrook, E. (Ed.) (2004). A Guide to What’s Wrong with Economics. London: Anthem Press.

Fullbrook, E. (Ed.) (2013). New Paradigm Economics. Real-World Economics Review, 65. http://www.rwer.worldpress.com/2013/09/27/rwer-issue-65/

Galbraith, J. K. (1958). The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Galbraith, J. K. (1987). Economics in Perspectives: A Critical History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Galbraith, J. K. (2001). A Contribution on the State of Economics in France and the World.Post-autistic Economics Newsletter, 1, (4), 1-7. http://www.btinternet.com-pae news/review/issue4.htm.

Mill, J.S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy (7th Ed.). London: (Reprinted in 1871)

Ricardo, D. (1717). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Source: Rod Hay’s Archive for the History of Economic Thought, McMaster University Canada. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/ricardo/tax/

Stiglitz, J. (1998). More Instruments and Broader Goals: Moving towards the Post-Washington Consensus. Wider Annual Lectures, 2, Helsinki.

The Kansas City Proposal: An International Open Letter to All Economics Departments (2001). Post-autistic economics newsletter, 8.