Neoclassicism, critical realism and the Cambridge methodological tradition

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to consider Lawson's three-way classification of economics, whereby neoclassicism is defined in terms of inconsistency between ontology and methodology. The notion of classification is explored in order to consider Lawson's well-defined triad in relation to the more fluid, provisional, porous classifications within critical realist analysis itself. The difficulties with fitting economists into any one of the triad is illustrated by considering economics at Cambridge, not least because the methodology of individual figures is open to different interpretations. It is concluded that the main thrust of Lawson's argument is rhetorical, aimed at denting the insistence on mathematical modelling. His definition of neoclassical economics is directly relevant to new developments within the mainstream as well as to heterodox modellers, implying that the onus is on both to argue that modelling is justified in particular circumstances.