Joseph Salerno says that the neo-classical school of economists is different from the Keynesian school. This is also what Wikipedia said. Why does the Mises.org "Are You an Austrian?" quiz equate the neo-classical school with the Keynesian one?
Neoclassical economics is a microeconomic school of thought, whereas Keynesian economics is concerned with macro. Paul Samuelson attempted to reconcile the two schools and this resulted in what is now known as the neoclassical synthesis. In spite of this, there were still tensions between the neoclassical foundations and the Keynesian macroeconomics (e.g. neoclassical microeconomic theory focused on "rational" behaviour, whereas Keynes' claimed that wages would not fall because workers would irrationally reject reductions in real wages), new classical economics criticised this and New Keynesian economics is the attempt on behalf of Keynesians to answer these criticisms and in doing so provide the microfoundations of macroeconomic analysis (for example, efficiency wages provided a way that real wages may be kept above the market clearing rate whilst staying true to "rational" behaviour).
Also, keep in mind that Keynesian economics is largely out of fashion these days, you'll learn it as an UG student, but that's largely because it's relatively easy to teach. In academia it doesn't hold much sway.
One more point, Austrian economics is technically a neoclassical school of economics, people like Walter Block pretend it isn't and as such fall into error. Put briefly, the point of neoclassical economics, originating from the marginal revolution (Jevons, Menger and Walras) was to explain price formation in terms of the subjective preferences of individual actors regarding marginal units of economic goods. In this regard Austrian economics is not an heterodox school of economics, only in terms of methodology could Austrianism be considered heterodox. Compare Austrian theory with that of Marxian or Classical economics and you'll see why Austrian economics is a neoclassical school. In terms of price theory there is a far greater affinity between Chicago price theory and Austrian price theory. The problem is that due to the backgrounds of Walras and Jevons, the marginal revolution was hijacked by formalists and positivists, and as such modern mainstream economics have had a far more difficult time explaining what they purport to that Austrians have with the use of verbal logic. That's why I'd say Austrian economics is far more true to neoclassical economics than mainstream economics.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
the neo-classical is neo in that its a synthesis between classical and keynesianism and some other stuff too. so keynesianism is in there.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
No, Neo-Classical economics precedes Keynesian economics in terms of historical origins. Keynesianism is a kind of Neo-Classical conceptions, but the whole of the Neo-Classical school is a big honkin' complex of other theories. Some theories have been rejected in terms of the Neo-Classical/Keynesian Synthesis (such as the subjective theory of value, theories of entrepreneurship, and the like). But on the whole, it's not very honest to assume it's a monolithic school, even if it's taught in this manner by Keynesian 'scholars.'
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
my bad, im in the habit of assuming that people are just saying Neoclassical when they are referrencing the neoclassical synthesis. ladyattis for the win.
Giles, can you recommend a good book I can read about all this?
Irish Liberty Forum
MatthewWilliam: Giles, can you recommend a good book I can read about all this?
Not really, I struggled to understand the differences for a while when I began learning economics. Reading Boettke's blog will give you a good idea of where Austrianism stands as regards the rest of economic theory, Salerno has some good blog posts/ articles as far Austrian economics and neoclassicism goes.
However, Garrison's Time and Money was probably the best source of this sort of information that I've read.
ladyattis: No, Neo-Classical economics precedes Keynesian economics in terms of historical origins. Keynesianism is a kind of Neo-Classical conceptions, but the whole of the Neo-Classical school is a big honkin' complex of other theories. Some theories have been rejected in terms of the Neo-Classical/Keynesian Synthesis (such as the subjective theory of value, theories of entrepreneurship, and the like). But on the whole, it's not very honest to assume it's a monolithic school, even if it's taught in this manner by Keynesian 'scholars.'
*bump*
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap