neoclassical economics


Also found in: Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

neoclassical economics

a school of economic ideas based on the writings of MARSHALL, etc., that superseded CLASSICAL ECONOMIC doctrines towards the end of the 19th century Frequently referred to as the ‘marginal revolution’, neoclassical economics involved a shift in emphasis away from classical economic concern with the source of wealth and its division between labour, landowners and capitalists towards a study of the principles that govern the optimal allocation of scarce resources to given wants. The principles of DIMINISHING MARGINAL UTILITY and STATIC EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS were founded in this new school of economic thought.
References in periodicals archive ?
But what is evident about the text is that it is takes a holistic approach to development rather than the narrow technical approach afforded by neoclassical economics.
This approach, Kaufman indicates, largely negates the abstractions postulated by Marshallian and neoclassical economics (which, however, have been widely adopted by economists since the 1970s).
But it all suggests a tension between ecological economics and neoclassical economics.
According to Gordon Bigelow, neoclassical economics and "post-autistic" economics are significantly different, with neoclassical economics currently the overwhelming economic view propagated in free-market cultures and imposed on schools (Bigelow, 2005).
2) Stiglitz's critique, however, is but part of a long tradition of castigating neoclassical economics for being unforgivably disembedded from social realities.
To explain as fully as possible the paths of post-Communist transition, comparative economists cannot depend entirely on neoclassical economics, or even its extension in 'new institutionalism.
Contemporary neoclassical economics, with its central image of (rather agency-free) agents who follow laws of mathematical maximization, at its fundamentals falls largely into this camp.
The book offers a number of substantial strengths: clear prose, a strong unifying theme, and a masterful ability to blend law and neoclassical economics.
The three essential features of his position were (1) a rejection of neoclassical economics as both intellectually irrelevant and generative of false policy prescriptions for the countries of the South; (2) a commitment to radical political action as well as radical analyses; (3) a rejection of the Marxism of the orthodox Communist parties for purveying inadequate and misleading modes of analysis and praxis.
In his 20s, he spoke with the gravity a Harvard student might reserve for a discussion of the relative merits of Keynesian and neoclassical economics.
The purpose of this article is to show how institutional and evolutionary economics provide better insights as to why some firms survive and others do not than does neoclassical economics.
That such assumptions reflect specific ideologies is most obvious in the case of the neoclassical economics that underlies neoliberal economic policies.