How ‘Neo-Classical’ is Neoclassical Economics? With Special Reference to Value Theory

This article presents the argument that most of post-classical economics since the 1870s represents, particularly in its analytical or scientific dimensions, a non-classical rather than neo-classical economics. This is especially true of micro-economics, i.e., the theory of value/prices and distribution. On the other hand, insofar as it is based on the doctrine of laissez-faire (slightly modified), post-classical economics can be characterized as neo-classical and only in its ideological and other meta-scientific aspects. It is here argued that the notion of ‘neoclassical economics’, as applied to post-classical, including contemporary, micro-economics, is not only a terminological misnomer, but it also implies a serious substantive fallacy. To support that argument, the paper identifies and elaborates the formal-theoretical inconsistency of the designation ‘neoclassical economics’ with the crust of contemporary marginalist value theory. Hence, the paper’s contribution is to show the inadequacy of the continuing widespread usage of the concept “neoclassical” in the modern economic literature.’Value is the essence of Economics’ (Wieser)