As regular readers of this blog will know, there are occasions when I announce something and then realise that more work is required before I can deliver what I suggested at the time.
This has happened on more than one occasion with books, and all such projects are currently on hold. It is now going to happen again with something I announced last weekend: the series on neoclassical and neoliberal economic myths.
In this case, the delay is because, if I am going to talk about these myths, I realise that I need to place these two schools of economic thinking in the wider framework of economic thought and its history. In other words, before challenging the myths, I need to explain how classical economics evolved into neoclassical economics, which in turn gave rise to alternative schools of Keynesian, neo-Keynesian and post-Keynesian thought, together with neoliberalism and the development of spinoff thinking such as that represented by the Austrian school (although I doubt I will be giving them much attention). Without this context, I think there is a risk that the series will not make much sense.
I could deal with this by just looking at some of the key thinkers in each of these areas — which would not be difficult, as I have been studying these issues for nearly five decades — but I am seeking a few opinions before I start.
Given the material's reasonable breadth, I am considering creating audio recordings instead of talking-head videos. They would still go out on YouTube, overlaid with images, but without me shuffling through notes in front of the camera, as I might do in a lecture series. I think this will work better. Comments on that approach would be welcome. The aim is to emphasise content and not my ability to talk to the camera.
The plan is to cover:
-
Classical economics
-
Neoclassical economics
-
Keynesian and neo-Keynesian economics
-
Post-Keynesian and heterodox economics
-
A concluding summary
Each section will look at around six major contributors to thought in that area, what they had to say, and a critique of their ideas. I stress, this will be high-level material. I am not pretending this is an in-depth course on the history of political or economic thought, but I hope, nevertheless, that it will serve as a useful introduction. I will also consider what makes these collective thinkers into a recognisable school of thought.
Finally, I will explore the narratives — what changed over time, and why one school of thought developed into another, or split, as when neoclassical thinking divided broadly between neoliberal thought and neo-Keynesian thought.
I have already sketched out much of the content for the series: this is much of what I have done this week. The question is: should these become mainstream YouTube content, replacing our normal morning videos? Or should they be issued as extra content, probably in the late-afternoon slot we sometimes use now? My intention is for them to stand as a body of work that will be of use over time, with their own index on this blog and on YouTube.
As ever, thoughts are welcome.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Ha-Joon Chang’s list of ‘schools’ of economic thought (in ‘Economics: A User’s Guide’) is:
The Classical School
The Neoclassical School
The Marxist School
The Developmentalist Tradition
The Austrian School
The Schumpeterian School
The Keynesian School
The Institutionalist School
The Behaviouralist School
My guess he would now add a separate Environmentalist School…
Too many to be useful to my argument, I think.
Doesn’t appeal to me. If that replaces your well-informed daily moral argument on tax and politics (and the comments thereon), I shall stop logging on.
What you do on Youtube is up to you (I almost always just read the blog posts) but will your proposed change of approach help change the thinking of the present government or its successors? That is what we need.
The aim is to inform.
I am interested in your comment – bt what is wrong with informing? Many comments suggest many people come here to learn.
I didn’t mean (and I don’t think I said) that there was anything wrong with informing people. Quite the reverse. I respect your blog posts because they are well informed, and I am constantly learning from them. But your latest plan sounds more academic and less immediately useful in campaigning or engaging in what are essentially political debates. Maybe I have misunderstood.
If it isn’t about effecting change, I don’t do it.
Suggestion/idea: taking Adam Smith as one example: he was writing at the +/- start of the UK’s industrial revolution (& the gradual destruction by the British of industry in India) – which transformed the economy of the UK. I wonder if it is worth putting economic thought into the context of what was happening in industry? – did developments in one area (industry) trigger developments in another (economic thought?). Reading the biography of the Stephensons, I have the impression that industrial developments were driven by fairly simple economic considerations (move cotton people more cheaply by rail than canal) – with economics playing catch-up.
(Other thought: the sons of the great early industrialists went to 19th cent public schools – & “enjoyed” a largely “classical” education – is this what caused Uk industrial decline – relative to e.g. a uniting Germany?)
I will be doing exactly what you suggest – the ideas cannot be disconected from their era, of course.
My suggestion is that you could comment on the myths in short nuggets without reviewing the grand sweep of economics since Adam Smith.
The former should be easier to do in small pieces. The latter has a feel of a grand project that might never see the light of day – unless you want to write a book on the historic of political economy. But perhaps a series of short videos might be easier to plan and do.
But look it is your time to do with as you wish. Good luck either way.
The notes for all six videos are now written – this is stuff I know
I could make them all next week
The myths then follow
If you can, I, personally, would prefer to see this as extra content. It sounds as if they will be quite different from your normal morning videos, and that may risk losing some viewers.
Noted
The myths series might be the same
I would pay particular attention the most destructive myths and I look forward to seeing you eviscerate them.
If I think of Zeitgeist and where we are, there is an emerging understanding that all is not well with the fundamental theoretical underpinnings of macroeconomics. A clear and concise explanation would be useful and important. The Zeitgeist needs more however: clarification of where these foundation stones, invisible to most, gravely damage humanity. Going further, we as a collective need to fix, to re build this secret temple of macro into one of care. What basic fundamentals need to be put in place? It is after all one minute to twelve on doomsday.
You get it, and my goals
Happy to second Steven Hinton’s comment. So go ahead Richard… we are all ears ( and eyes for the videos) 🙂
Well, I hope they work then.
Sounds like you’ve considered and scooped the content, so my comment is on the framing, and the thought that this series could gain the attention of a new audience, hooked in by the social history angle rather than ‘economics’ (which for most people is a complete turn-off).
A meta message of the series will be that over time economic thinking does change. The interesting question (for me anyway) is why and how economic thinking changed and the real world implications.
There is a growing desire of a new politics and with that a new economics; evidenced by 750,000 individual registered interest in Your Party. People who want change. To burst the neoliberal bubble that surrounds us. That’s going to take a wider understanding within this movement and beyond of how changes in dominant economic thinking got us here….and ultimately, will be required to lead us out.
That sounds rather ambitious, so read as a suggestion as to the direction of travel for this educational work. It’s important.
‘Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.’ Nelson Mandela
Think you.
That’s made me think – because you have understood how I am looking at this, and so you are making me check the narrative.
There are several ‘History of Economic Thought’ books – although not sure which count as definitive. There is also George Monbiot’s the ‘Invisible Doctrine’ polemic on neoliberalism.
Presumably you will need to be confident that your framework is sufficiently different/definitive/authoritative. If you are, I think a Kindle (maybe plus audio) book is the best way for the reader/listener to be able to see the overall structure and and argument , and then leap to details where he or she wants.
You are overstating my ambition.
This is not a book.
Or a definitive anything.
It’s an introduction to the core ideas in a few videos for those who might otherwise go nowhere near it to contextualise discussion here. That’s it.
I am rather minded to paraphrase the famous quote by Ghandi on what he thought of Western Civilisation ‘I think it would be a good idea’ but then the Google Search came up with this from AI
AI Overview
When asked about his thoughts on Western civilization, Mahatma Gandhi famously replied, “I think it would be a good idea.”. This quote, often cited as a critique, highlights Gandhi’s view that Western civilization, with its focus on material progress and violence, was not a model to be emulated.
He contrasted this with his concept of “true civilization,” which he defined as a way of life that emphasizes duty, morality, and non-violence.
Gandhi’s perspective on Western civilization is further elaborated in his book Hind Swaraj, where he critiques its emphasis on industrialization, materialism, and the pursuit of power through violence. He proposed an alternative model based on self-reliance, simplicity, and non-violent resistance, which he believed would lead to a more just and harmonious society.
Translates pretty directly to much economic thought
Thanks
Great suggestion. Just what the doctor ordered for the curious and confused who are short on time and with no background in economics.
Look forward to it.
I appreciate many will know this stuff already but I am numbered among those who don’t.
Thanks
I’m most interested in “How economic thought got us into this mess, including how MMT could get us out of this godawfull mess.!
Without the building blocks that is not possible.
Podcasts?
Sort of. And John Christensen and I have discussed developing them in a podcast.
I am deeply grateful to you and your blog. You have opened my eyes and widened my world view. You and your contributors have sent me off on many previously vaguely glimpsed tracks. I am a book person and enjoy your previous publications. Thank you.
PS
One book I have found useful on the lines of the current discussion is:
“Contending Perspectives in Economics: A Guide to Contemporary Schools of Thought” Hardcover by John T. Harvey
Thanks
It seems to me that really grasping economics involves understanding each of the steps you are hoping to cover.
It’s ifA, then B, if B, then C. You cannot get to E, F,G, or Z unless you make the logical progression step by step. I’m fairly sure this is the way you normally work with every topic and it’s the best way to do it. I also think it’s more enjoyable for you and your readers.The assiduous reader will want to make that journey and not just accept we are where we are.
Thanks
I’m running a bit counter this time as my opinion, and it is only that, is go your standard video format with however many videos there are, running in sequence without interruption Why? Because your videos are effective and because the story has been, is, and always will be, the core to understanding how we’ve arrived where we are. People want to understand. They have a hunger for clarity and I think a concise series of videos on the history of economic thought and the implications and consequences for us all will enable more people to ask more questions of those who need to be questioned with more confidence.
I would also suggest announcing the series well in advance. You never know who might want to know!
Noted
Thanks
Within the Post-Keynesian & heterodox school, please include ecological economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics. That subset is the only grouping that takes account of our economic life being embedded in planetary reality which is defined by the second law of thermodynamics. It is what turns economics into a science, at last
If ecological economics + MMT aren’t the two most important macroeconomic understandings that politicians must embrace, if humanity is to have some capacity to save itself, then we may as well give up.
The difficulties are threefold.
First, I do not know enough about the thinkers.
Second, the thinking has had little impact.
Third, from what I have read, the ideas have no created a coherent whole as yet.
this is such a good idea that will be so helpful to so many people that it needs to be as mainstream as possible…
More work has been done on this today. I wanted to create narrative flow and it has it now.
Yes please, narrative with images format sounds good – two modes of communication helpful for those like me in fairly unfamiliar territory.
Thanks
Apologies – coming to this a little late.
I really like the idea of putting the “schools” into context. Mike P suggested identifying the industrial one. And, of course, there’s interaction and consequences.
We shouldn’t forget the legal, political (and moral) moraes that supported /undermined different schools at different times / places. I suspect that is the reason some approaches have been neglected over time. Is it possible to identify the key gaps/flaws (finite Earth, externalities …. But are there particular deficiencies that led to some schools to be “dropped”). I’d like to understand that better too, to frame the big picture.
Good luck!
Those connections are what, if anything, interest me the most.
I highly recommend Michael Hudson’s 2010 book America’s Protectionist Takeoff: The Neglected American School of Political Economy
https://annas-archive.org/md5/4ca91fe0af5412dbaac5e9032e719bfb
Hudson writes:
“….economic historians have treated … the American School [as if it] never existed. The modern abhorrence of protectionism expunged from history the logic that guided U.S. industrialization under Republican leadership from 1860 through 1912. The American School’s trenchant critique of free trade and the theorizing of Ricardo, Malthus and other British writers caused a cognitive dissonance in the minds of professors eager to promote a view of American history driven by an inexorable drive for free trade and westward expansion as Manifest Destiny.”
In Origins of Academic Economics in the United States (Columbia University Press, 1944), Michael J.L. O’Connor notes that the first American edition of Smith’s Wealth of Nations did not appear until some years after the American Revolution. O’Conner found that the most popular “principal text” used to teach economics in the USA was Elements of Political Economy, by Francis Wayland, president of Brown University.
In his article “Francis Wayland’s 1830s Textbooks: Evangelical Ethics and Political Economy,” (Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2002), Donald E. Frey wrote, “A comparison of book sales to college enrollments suggests that Wayland’s Political Economy served a greater proportion of the market of its day than Paul Samuelson’s Economics did between 1948-1980.”
In (Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream, Memphis State University Press, 1978), Gabor Boritt wrote that Lincoln’s Springfield law partner, William Herndon, recalled that Lincoln read Henry C. Carey and Francis Wayland (Elements of Political Economy). No mention made of Adam Smith.
In Henry Charles Carey: A Study in American Economic Thought (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1931), A.D.H. Kaplan writes “…Professor Perry, writing in 1878, divided the economic treatises in America into two categories: those modelled after Adam Smith and those modelled after Carey. Yet today it is difficult to find an American manual on economics containing a reference to Henry Charles Carey. Nor does the name of Carey, the outstanding advocate of the protective tariff when it had to fight for political recognition, come up in the debates of men who make the tariff acts in the United States in this day, when the protective tariff is taken for granted in national politics….”
Thank you
And noted
Will you include a critique of Marxism?
Let’s be clear – he might get 7 minutes if he’s lucky, but of course I will critique in that.