ABSTRACT
Tony Lawson’s latest contribution to economics is deliberately provocative. Since the marginal revolution of the 1870s, critics of the capitalist system have understood neoclassical economics as an ideological support for the defence and preservation of capitalist class relations. 1 Instead of investigating the social dynamics of an existing economy, neoclassical economics examines a fantasy realm of individual decision making. From here, it constructs deductive-nomological (D-N) models, which justify the superiority of laissez-faire capitalism. In order to sustain its hegemony, neoclassical economics has developed into a multifaceted system made up of: (1) a particular object of investigation; (2) an underlying philosophy of science; (3) a set of analytical techniques; and (4) a series of substantive theoretical positions. Lawson wants to dispute all of this, arguing that neoclassical economics is a signifier that we can best do without. In Lawson’s estimation, the normal criterion for defining a neoclassical school is historical continuity with something classical and/or internal coherence around a shared set of analytical features (Lawson, Chapter 1: 30). Assessing a number of contributions on the historical lineage of the discipline, Lawson argues that any sense of theoretical continuity (with classical economics) is nowhere to be found. Meanwhile, even ‘cautious interpreters’ have struggled to come up with a description of any internal coherence (Lawson, Chapter 1: 31). Why does any of this matter? Lawson ultimately wants to jettison all talk of neoclassicism on the basis that it hinders effective critique of the economic mainstream.
