The inheritance of mainstream economics is as follows:
Classical political economy (classical political economy)-neoclassical economics (neoclassical economics)-modern economics (modern economics).
The term economy originally refers to family management. The modification of political before it refers to the management of the entire country. There is a top economics journal called “Journal of Political Economy”. The reason it is called is because the discipline was called political economy when the journal was founded. After Marshall’s “Principles of Economics”, which established the neoclassical economic system, was published in 1891, the term “economics” gradually replaced political economy.
Economics continues to separate other schools in the process of evolution. The first is Marxist economics. Since Marx and Ricardo’s views are relatively close and both recognise the lobar theory of value, their successors can be collectively referred to as the Marx-Ricardo school. This school is closer to classical political economy and retains a lot of philosophical thinking. This faction is also called radical economics in the United States, mainly in two universities, the University of Utah and the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The latter school has close ties with our college engaged in politics and economics. In addition to socialist countries and former socialist countries, Marxist economics has a great influence in Japan. Some Japanese economists practice both Marxist economics and modern economics. In addition, this faction has a certain influence at Cambridge University in England.
Next comes the Austrian school
The Austrian school and Marxism are exactly the two ends of ideology. The former is a thorough individualism malaise-afire, and the latter is a thorough collectivist state intervention. There are very few Austrian schools in universities now, mainly in think tanks.
At the end of the 19th century, an institutional school emerged in the United States. They emphasised the study of institutions, more like sociology. The institutional school dominated the American economics circle for decades, and then declined. Later, there was Cease’s doctrine that also emphasised the system. In order to distinguish between the two, the former is called the old system school, and the latter is called the new system school. The new institutional school’s emphasis on property rights and transaction costs is recognised and accepted by mainstream economics. So in fact, the content and methods of modern economics research are now very diverse. There have always been descendants of the old system school, some of whom have gone to develop evolutionary economics tuition.
Then I want to explain what is meant by the Chicago School that many people have probably heard of. Hickman’s speech to Becker’s 80th birthday made a clear distinction between the Chicago School and the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago, and pointed out that these are two different things. The Chicago School is a school of economists led by Friedman who are ideologically inclined to liberalism and advocate malaise-afire in economic policy. The Chicago school is mainly in the economics department of the University of Chicago, such as Friedman and Becker, but also in other faculties, as well as in UCLA. Not all teachers of the University of Chicago’s Economics Department belong to the Chicago School. For example, Mun dell is a Keynesian, of course not. After understanding this, it is understandable to know that teacher Lin Afoot who graduated from Chicago University is a Keynesian. But Hickman said that, including Mun dell, the University of Chicago’s Economics Department has a common methodology, and both emphasise the application of price theory and empirical evidence. This is obvious to Teacher Lin. In addition, according to Teacher Lin, the Department of Economics at Chicago University has a tradition of letting foreign students do research papers in their own country.
The difference between Chicago University and other schools in economics is mainly in macroeconomics. The University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota, which are close to the Great Lakes, mainly engage in neoclassical macroeconomics and are called the freshwater school. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Harvard University, and the University of California, Berkeley, which are close to the sea, mainly engage in Neo-Keynesian macroeconomics and are called the saltwater school. But in fact, with the gradual exchange and integration, the difference between these two types of macroeconomics has become very small. It is just a few minute details, and even some macro economists cannot tell which school they belong to. Modern economics is still a highly unified whole.
Some people in China have been fighting the so-called liberalness economics. Recently, they have also written some open letters requesting corrections in subject evaluation and curriculum settings. It is said that even the leaders are paying attention. But from the above we can see that it is really difficult to define a liberalness economics. There are some economists whose thinking tends to be liberalness, but their economics is no different from others. If the entire modern economics is described as liberalism, then even Keynesian ism will become liberalism, which is obviously very nonsense. So, is there any liberalness economic thinking? Of course there is. But when it comes to teaching and research, a liberalness economics cannot be defined, but define as in Econs Tuition in Singapore. Thanks
In short, there are modern economics, Marxist economics, Austrian economics, old institutional economics, but no liberalness economics. I actually want to say this when writing this article.