Skip to main content

‘Neoclassical’

  • 316 Accesses

Abstract

The term ‘neoclassical’ was first used by Veblen (1900, pp. 242, 260–2, 265–8), in order to characterize Marshall and Marshallian economics. Veblen did not appeal to any similarity in theoretical structure between the economics of Marshall and classical economics in order to defend this novel designation. Rather, he perceived Marshall’s Cambridge School to have a continuity with classical economics on the alleged basis of a common utilitarian approach and the common assumption of a hedonistic psychology. Derivative from Veblen’s use, this meaning of the term subsequently gained some currency, particularly in the 1920s and 1930s; for example, in the writings of Wesley Mitchell, J.A. Hobson, Maurice Dobb and Eric Roll. It is evident that the emergence of this notion of Marshallian economics as a ‘neoclassical’ project also involved, at least in part, an acquiescence to Marshall’s portrayal of his own economics as a continuation of the classical tradition, though Marshall’s sense of the continuity is not really that perceived by Veblen. Keynes (1936, pp. 177–8) also employed the term, though in an idiosyncratic matter, derivative from his equally idiosyncratic notion of classical economics.

Keywords

  • Cambridge School
  • Classical economics
  • Dobb, M. H.
  • Hedonistic psychology
  • Hobson, J. A.
  • Marginal productivity theory of distribution
  • Marginalist theory
  • Marshall, A.
  • Methodological individualism
  • Mitchell, W. C.
  • Neoclassical
  • Neoclassical economics
  • Neoclassical synthesis
  • Roll, E.
  • Subjective theory of value
  • Utilitarianism
  • Veblen, T

JEL Classifications

  • B13

This chapter was originally published in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, 2008. Edited by Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Bibliography

  • Aspromourgos, T. 1986. On the origins of the term ‘neoclassical’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 10: 265–270.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Colander, D. 2000. The death of neoclassical economics. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22: 127–143.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dobb, M. 1924. The entrepreneur myth. Economica 4: 66–81.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W.H. 1923. Vestigial economics. New Republic, 4 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J.R. 1932. Marginal productivity and the principle of variation. Economica 12: 79–88.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J.M. 1936. The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P.A. 1955. Economics: An introductory analysis. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G.J. 1941. Production and distribution theories. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veblen, T.B. 1900. The preconceptions of economic science III. Quarterly Journal of Economics 14: 240–269.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2008 The Author(s)

About this entry

Cite this entry

Aspromourgos, T. (2008). ‘Neoclassical’. In: The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_723-2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_723-2

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-95121-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social Sciences

Chapter History

  1. Latest

    ‘Neoclassical’
    Published:
    17 March 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_723-2

  2. Original

    ‘Neoclassical’
    Published:
    24 November 2016

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_723-1