ABSTRACT
Whilst Lawson (Chapter 1) explores possible meanings of the term ‘neoclassical’, primarily, via the work of Veblen (who first coined the term), the lessons Lawson offers extend not only beyond the history of economic thought but also beyond the meaning of the term neoclassical. The main lesson, as I read it, is Lawson’s insistence on locating the discussion not at the level of substantive theory, but at the level of meta-theory. Attempts to label this or that substantive theory neoclassical are problematic: (a) because it encourages critics to identify limitations solely at the level of substantive theory; and (b) because it encourages critics to dismiss substantive theories without attending to the more fundamental meta-theoretical nature of their limitations. So, for example, some economists find themselves rejecting the so-called neoclassical theory of value, whilst accepting an identical meta-theoretical approach to value theory, i.e. one rooted in mathematical modelling. 2 Instead, and following Veblen, Lawson argues that the real limitations lie at the level of meta-theory. More specifically, he argues that if neoclassical economics can be characterised by anything, then it is the following:
a commitment to the view (at some superficial level) that social reality is causal-historical or causal-processual;
a commitment to realisticness;
a commitment to modelling economic phenomena mathematically; and
a failure to recognise that a commitment to the first two simultaneously is contradictory.
