IIARD International Institute of Academic Research and Development

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (IJEFM )

E-ISSN 2545-5966
P-ISSN 2695-1932
VOL. 7 NO. 4 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56201/ijefm.v7.no4.2022.pg1.13

---

Accessing the Usefulness of Neoclassical Economics Theory

Justice Ezebunwa and Leera Kpagih

---

Abstract

This research shows a review of the Neoclassical Economics theory with a view of discovering or disputing the claim – where possible – that the neoclassical theory is dead and worthless. This paper plagiarizes from the outcome of previous and relevant study conducted on this same proposition and uncovers the existence of a huge controversy in the literature – both old and new – of the effectiveness of the neoclassical economics. Given the lack of consensus on the neoclassical economics debate, the author of this manuscript then shows that while the Neoclassical theory is may not be dead; its effectiveness and efficiency given its entire underlying hypothesis that may be well within doubt. Furthermore the paper found that requesting the death of a model can only occur when the primary assumptions or hypothesis of that model is conducted and still the model fails to deliver valuable results. In the case of the neoclassical economics model; the only criticism can be that the fundamental assumptions nor hypothesis cannot embrace in a real world situation. Therefore declarations of its death cannot stand firm in an authorized argument – its efficiency maybe; but certainly not death. The author does however try to provide a brief assessment of the various extensions and alternatives of the neoclassical model that have evolved in a bid to augment its supposed failings.

keywords:

Neoclassical Economics Theory

---

References:

Ackerman, F. (2002); “Still dead after all these years: Interpreting the Failure of
General Equilibrium Theory”, Journal of Economic Methodo logy, Vol. 9, No.
2, pp 119-139
Archer, M. S. and Tritter, J. Q. (2000); “Rational Choice Theory: Resisting
Colonization”, London: Routledge.
Arrow, K. J. and Debreu, G. (1954) “Existence of Equilibrium for a Competitive
Economy,” Econometrica, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp 265-290
Amariglio, J. and Ruccio, D. F. (2002); “Modern Economics: The Case of the
Disappearing Body”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 26, pp 81-103.
Aspromourgos, T, (1986); “On the Origins of the Term „Neoclassical?”, Cambridge
Journal of Economics, Vol. 10, pp 265-270
Black, J. (1997); “A Dictionary of Economics”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blaug, Mark, (1985), Economic Theory in Retrospect, New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Carmerer, C. F and Fehr, E, (2006); “When does Economic Man Dominate Social
Behaviour?” Science, Vol. 311, No. 5757, pp 47-52.
Colander, D. and Landreth, H 1(994) History of Economic Thought, 3rd ed., Boston,
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Colander David (2000), The Death of Neoclassical Economics.
Daal, J. and Jolink, A. (1993); “The Equilibrium Economics of Leon Walras”,
London: Routledge.
Daly, H. (1996), Beyond growth, Boston: Beacon Press
Derek, G., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M J, and Whatmore, S. (2009); “The
Dictionary of Human Geography”, 5th edition, London: Wiley Blackwell
Publishing.
Dequech, D, (2007); “Neoclassical, Mainstream, Orthodox and Heterodox,
Economics”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp 279-
302.
Dow, S C., (2012), “Different Approaches to the Financial Crisis”, Economic
Thought, Vol. 1, pp. 80.
Elster, J, (1989); “Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences”, in Kjosavic, D. L. (ed.)
Methodological Individualism and Rational Choice in Neoclassical
Economics: A Review of Institutionalist Critique, Forum for Development
Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp 205-245
Fehr, E. and S G chter (2000) Fairness and Retaliation: The economics of reciprocity.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159-81
Finlayson, A. C., Lyson, T. A., Pleasant, A, Schafft, K. A. and Torres, R. J. (2005);
“The Invisible Hand: Neoclassical Economics and the Ordering of Society”,
Critical Sociology, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp 515-536
Fullbrook, E, (2001) “Real Science Is Pluralist”, post-autistic economics newsletter:
issue
no.
5,
March,
article
5,
http://www.btinternet.com/~pae_news/review/issue5.htm
Fullbrook, E. (2012) “To observe or not to observe: Complementary pluralism in
physics and economics”, real-world economics review, issue no. 62, pp. 20-
28, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue62/Fullbrook62.p
Fullbrook, E (2013) “New paradigm economics”, real-world economics review, issue
no.
65,
pp.
129-131,
http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue65/Fullbrook65.pdf
Gans, J S, (1996); “On the Impossibility of Rational Choice under Incomplete
Information” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 29, pp
287-309.
Galbraith, J. K. (2001) “A Contribution on The State of Economics in France and the
World”, Post – Austistic Economics Newsletter: issue no. 4, January article 1.
Goldschmidt, N. (2002), Distorted economic relations: A new movement – the post-
autistic
economists
–
wants
to
renew
economics.
http://www.paecon.net/PAEarticles/Goldschmidt1.htm
Gowdy, J. M. (2009); “Economics Interactions with other Disciplines”, Oxford: Eolss
Publishing Ltd.
Hicks, J R, (1983) Classics and Moderns (Collected Essays on Economic Theory, vol.
III), Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
Hodgson, G. M. (1992); “The Reconstruction of Economics: Is there still a Place for
Neoclassical Theory?” Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp 749-
767.
Hodgson, G. M. (2001), How Economics Forgot History: The Problem of Historical
Specificity in Social Science. New York: Routledge.
Hodgson, G. M. (2004); “The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency,
Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism”, London: Routledge.
Hodgson, G. M, (2007); “Meanings of Methodological Individualism”, Journal of
Economic Methodology, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp 211-216
Kaldor, N. (1972); “The Irrelevance of Equilibrium Economics”, The Economic
Journal, Vol. 82, No. 328, pp 1237-1255.
Katouzian, H. (1980); “Ideology and Methods in Economics”, London: Macmillan.
Kjosavic, D. L. (2003); “Methodological Individualism and Rational Choice in
Neoclassical Economics: A Review of Institutionalist Critique”, Forum for
Development Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp 205-245.
Kuhn, T. S, (1962), The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lawson, T. (2013), "What is this 'school' called neoclassical economics?" Cambridge
Journal of Economics 37(5): 947-983.
Mulligan, Casey B (1998), Pecuniary incentives to work in the United States during
World War II, Journal of Political Economy 106(5): 1033–1077.
O?Sullivan, A. and Sheffrin, S. M. (2003); “Economics: Principles in Action”, New
Jersey: Pearson Publishing Ltd.
Rizvi, S. A. (1994); “The Micro foundations Project in General Equilibrium Theory”,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 18, pp 357-377.
Udehn, L. (2002); “The Changing Face of Methodological Individualism”, Annual
Review of Sociology, Vol. 28, pp 479-507.
Wilson, E. O. (1998); “Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge”, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, Inc.
Why does neoclassical thinking still dominate economics?: Available at:
http://theconversation.com/why-does-neoclassical-thinking-still-dominate-
economics-3861: (Accessed on 10 June 2022)
Why neoclassical economics is dead: Available at:
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/30/why-neoclassical-economics- is-
Krugman, Paul, (2009) “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?” The New York
Times Magazine, 6 September

DOWNLOAD PDF

---

Back