Efficiency

[Mathew Forstater]

Juan- I am speaking generally now and not about A & H specifically.  I don't
think I'm confusing instruments and ends, I just think that both matter.  And
your conclusions are weakened if your theory is logically inconsistent, your
methodology is suspect, etc.  So even though I am "interested" when neoclassicals
come to conclusions I agree with, I do think it matters how we arrived there.
This is only my view and it's all open to debate (though not generally from the
mainstream side, who don't see studying other approaches to economics as
important, for whom "economics" simply means neoclassical economics, etc.).  For
me, the internal and external critiques of neoclassical economics are compelling
and devastating, so why should we use it when other analytical approaches are
available?  These, of course, need to be worked on and improved and refined, but
unfortunately so many fewer spend time working on them or learning them because
of the disastrous state of economics education and the economics profession.  I
guess one excuse for packaging your argument in neoclassical terms is
rhetorical--to try to convince those who only want it packaged that way, so it
will be legitimate, etc.  I guess some people do that.  But I think more often,
some liberals or radicals who use neoclassical theory just don't see the theory
as a problem.  It's just a variable is missing, or you relax an assumption here,
or whatever and then we get different conclusions.  Don't know if this helps.
best, Mat

Juan Jose Barrios wrote:


> Mathew Forstater wrote:
> >
> > Bill wrote:
> >
> >
> > By the way, although I admire Albert and Hahnel's work (I had their older
> > books a long time ago and though I can't say I've really studied their
> > newer stuff I respect their efforts and the general spirit) I was on a
> > panel with Hahnel on environmental policy once and was surprised and struck
> > at how neoclassical his paper was.
>
> I have not read that paper. I promise I will. However, since Robin was
> my professor at AU, I have talked to him about this and I have also read
> "Quiet Revolution..", "Participatory...", "Looking Forward....", etc,
> etc. I am puzzled by your comment. Why do you say that??. When I read
> Quiet Revolution, I was sort of confused because they (Albert and
> Hahnel) use utilitiy functions, indiference curves, Pareto efficiency
> concepts, etc, etc, all of which are also used in neclassical economics.
> Aren't you confusion the instruments with the end objective ?
>
> Juan