June 04, 2008
Have the Origins of Neoclassical Economics Now Become a Fetter Upon Its Development?
Robert Nadeau in Scientific American:
The 19th-century creators of neoclassical economics—the theory that now serves as the basis for coordinating activities in the global market system—are credited with transforming their field into a scientific discipline. But what is not widely known is that these now legendary economists—William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, Maria Edgeworth and Vilfredo Pareto—developed their theories by adapting equations from 19th-century physics that eventually became obsolete. Unfortunately, it is clear that neoclassical economics has also become outdated. The theory is based on unscientific assumptions that are hindering the implementation of viable economic solutions for global warming and other menacing environmental problems.
The physical theory that the creators of neoclassical economics used as a template was conceived in response to the inability of Newtonian physics to account for the phenomena of heat, light and electricity. In 1847 German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz formulated the conservation of energy principle and postulated the existence of a field of conserved energy that fills all space and unifies these phenomena. Later in the century James Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists devised better explanations for electromagnetism and thermodynamics, but in the meantime, the economists had borrowed and altered Helmholtz’s equations.
The strategy the economists used was as simple as it was absurd—they substituted economic variables for physical ones. Utility (a measure of economic well-being) took the place of energy; the sum of utility and expenditure replaced potential and kinetic energy.
[H/t: Pablo Policzer and Mark Blyth]
Posted by Robin Varghese at 03:57 PM | Permalink









Comments
Isn't Nadeau just invoking a form of the genetic fallacy here? The origins of a theory do not determine its truth, unless the truth claim is somehow based on decent from some true origin. No serious person claims economics is true since it derives from physics, indeed, as Nadeau observes, any such historical connections are now obscured in current economic though: for good reason, since they do not form part of the foundation of any claims economic theory makes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Posted by: stefan | Jun 5, 2008 12:36:19 AM
cf.
http://www.reason.com/blog/printer/125951.html
http://econjeff.blogspot.com/2008/04/why-study-novels-when-you-can-do-bad.html
Posted by: BenjaminL | Jun 5, 2008 1:53:19 PM
Post a comment