Limitations of Traditional Economics

As stated in the previous chapter, Robert Heilbroner is a writer of political economy of classical dimensions. The breadth of vision that is evident in his range of writings also transfers to the scope of his criticisms of traditional economic theory. Nothing in his work can be properly appreciated unless one understands that his aim is not a simple reconstruction or adaptation of neoclassical economic theory or method; his dissent runs much deeper. He states that over the years he has developed ‘an increasing impatience with, and finally a near total rejection of, neoclassical economics as an interpretation of social reality’ (Heilbroner 1992a, 247). To Heilbroner, traditional economists simply ask the wrong questions. Such a wide separation makes interpreting the finer points of his contributions difficult. In most critical discussion, both participants share some common footing. The discourse usually begins from this common point and proceeds using a mutually agreed upon vocabulary with each participant attempting to draw the other towards their side of the question. In this case any common ground, including vocabulary, is frequently quite scarce. Heilbroner and the neoclassical school are often so far apart they cannot even agree upon the appropriate goal of the discussion. In other words, what is at stake is the actual definition, scope and correct role of economic science itself.