Robert Went notes that an argument similar to the one I made under the
above title was presented by a neoclassical, orthodox, economist, Dani
Rodrik. I see nothing surprising about the source. Neoclassical economics
is not the same thing as Chicago economics. On the micro-level, there are
all sorts of openings for more progressive conclusions than come out of the
usual neoclassical research, because neoclassical assumptions of perfect
competition, perfect information, etc. can be weakened. Sophisticated NC
economics can be useful, though often its practitioners are excessively
concerned with form (math) rather than content (e.g., criticism of markets).
What NC economics misses, IMHO, is an understanding of the _totality_, of
how our society is is dominated by capitalism, by capital. The NCs have
some understandaing of how the parts create the whole, but usually stop
there, clinging to reductionism or methodological individualism. They miss
the way in which the totality -- capitalist class society -- feeds back to
affect micro-processes ("whole makes parts"). The totality for most is
Walrasian general equilibrium, which mostly simply aggregates individual
processes. Thus, class conflict in the workplace is treated as a bilateral
bargaining process or a "collective goods problem" (in which disobedient
workers are free riders) or the efficiency-wage model (using wage scales to
evoke effort, etc.) or something similar. Conflict (wildcat strikes, etc.)
is seen as a market failure rather than an inherent aspect of capitalism.
The potential for worker solidarity and the actuality of capitalist
divide-and-rule are missed.
Because of its avoidance of the issue of how the whole constitutes the
parts, they also miss a lot of what's going on with how the parts make the
whole. This is especially true when we think about time. For NC economics,
time is really an embarrassment. They want to treat it as completely
analogous to space. Irreversabilities and uncertainties about the future
are anathema. To use the phrase "individual processes" in the same sentence
with "Walrasian general equibrium," as I did above, is a theoretical
mistake, since the Walrasian GE system is timeless (except nominally). They
NCs miss the way in which competition and class struggle are time-bound
processes or battles rather than static states, equilibria.
enough sermonizing for the day,
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://clawww.lmu.edu/fall%201997/ECON/jdevine.html
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
Economic theories "have become little more than vain attempts to revive
exploded superstitions, or sophisms like those of Mr. Malthus, calculated
to lull the oppressors of mankind into a security fo everlasting triumph."
-- adapted from Percy Bysshe Shelley.
