body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Former featured articleEconomics is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 3, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
April 21, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
September 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Suggestions for "History of economic thought"[edit]

The main purpose of that section should be to present the history of economic thought from a mainstream view, mentioning the more heterodox directions collectively at a less detailed level, preferably in the subsection "Other schools and approaches" as is the case currently for some of these. However, three heterodox schools are given prominent treatment in the main text: Marxian, post-Keynesian and Austrian thought. This would conflict with WP:FRINGE. I propose that mention of the three schools be shortened and moved to the subsection of other schools. Secondly, the current subsection on the Chicago School should be replaced by two new ones, on monetarism and new classical economics, respectively. Though it is true that the protagonists from both schools are sometimes mentioned as Chicago School economists, the two schools are clearly distinct and played independent and important roles in the development of theory - a fact which the current text does not reflect properly. Økonom (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While this section could use some editing, your changes are too extreme. Marxian economics is a part of the history of economics whether you like it or not. Also, Marxian economics followed in the tradition of classical economics and the labor theory of value - neoclassical economics is a break from Marxian (and to some extent classical) economics and its rise makes no sense if you erase Marx's writings, the massive socialist movement from the 19th to late 20th century etc. from existence.
Probably what can use the most cleanup is the post-Keynesian section. Your edits seem fine, the main problem is there are too many headers - economists flirtation with rational expectations is not as significant as neoclassical or classical economics. What you wrote is fine but they don't each deserve a new section. I am putting the Marxian section back and changing the three post-Keynesian sections into one. Minimax Regret (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our disagreements seem to relate to three issues:
  1. The prominence of Marxian economics in the outline of history of thought,
  2. The prominence of post-Keynesian economics in the outline of history of thought,
  3. The use of headers.
As to the first two points, I believe that it is generally recognized that there is a mainstream research program in economics, and then there are some fringe/alternative/heterodox groups outside the mainstream. Both Marxian and post-Keynesian economics are generally categorized as belonging to the heterodox groupings, e.g. by Lee's article in The New Palgrave, which I cited. Following Wikipedia:Fringe theories, such theories can be mentioned in an overview like the present one, but they should not be given prominence on a level equal to mainstream theory, so I think that your recent edits give both theories an undue weight in the exposition.
As to the third point, (old) Keynesian, monetarist, new classical and new Keynesian theories are regarded as the main post-war schools of thought in several, if not most, accounts of economic theory. I cited Blanchard's recent exposition, but it is just one typical example (whereas Marxian and post-Keynesian theories are rarely mentioned except in very detailed overviews). The same division was mentioned in the article already before my edits, in the subsection on Other schools. This typical division in reliable sources should also be reflected in the heading hierarchy. Økonom (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the clearest WP guideline relevant to the present discussion is WP:ECON/RS, where it says: "Heterodox views and views from other fields, such as history and political economy, should not be excluded. However, per Undue weight, theories and viewpoints held by a minority should not receive as much attention as the majority view, and views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." I believe this implies that it is reasonable to mention both Marxian and post-Keynesian in the subsection on other schools, as I did in my edit, but not to give them the prominent role in the general overview which you have re-instated with your edits. Økonom (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox. Adam Smith and David Ricardo and the classical economists had views of value closer to Marx's then current mainstream academia. Just like Isaac Newton's physics are heterodox in our current post-Einstein, post-quantum mechanics world. The argument that WP:ECON/RS means to erase any history considered heterodox in current US academia is not just to erase Marxian economics from history, and erase the Cold War from history, but to erase all economic history. The economic ideas around the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act are as much part of important economic history as Marxian ideas, whether or not they're considered heterodox in current US academia. All of economic history prior to the current moment is heterodox in that view.
I don't have any opinions about how post-Keynesianism is portrayed, other than that are too many headers everywhere, I moved that section around as best I could.
Adam Smith wrote in 1776 and Capital was published in 1867. About ninety years of economic thought in one section, including Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill. Contrast this to rational expectations which had its heyday in the 1970s and which has waned somewhat since then. It seems to deserve its own paragraph but not its own section. The history section already has more sub-sections than any other section, adding several more sections for one-paragraph descriptions doesn't really flow. It doesn't make sense to me but lots of people are around to organize sections other than myself.
Economics is a social science, not a science. Minimax Regret (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The crucial point, on which I hope we agree, is that the article should follow the established WP guidelines, including WP:ECON/RS. You do not directly address this point? There is no attempt to erase alternative ideas from the article, but to give them their due weight, by putting the two dissident views in question in the section of "Other schools..." together with the other heterodox groupings which are already described there. Instead of giving the erroneous impression, which the current text gives, that they are important mainstream milestones in theory history. I know of no recognized authoritative sources which support the weight that Marxism and post-Keynesianism currently has in the text.
To make a compromise, I suppose one could argue that Marx himself and his labour theory of value might merit some kind of mention in the Classical political economy section, whereas his later followers which make up what is normally called Marxist or Marxian economics are more properly mentioned in the Other schools section. Post-Keynesian economics is currently described redundantly, appearing in both the heterodox context and before that (unchronologically) in the main Keynesian section. It should be removed from the latter (as should new Keynesian economics, which also appears later), which more appropriately could mention some of Keynes' important early followers like Hicks, Tobin, Modigliani, etc. As to the headers, I do not see a great problem in the number of headers itself if they form a logical division of the text, and I repeat that monetarists, new classicals and new Keynesians are generally recognized as important independent post-war schools. Several widely used textbooks use the same line of division. However, if your discontent is about the level of hierarchy, they could be subsections under your header of Post-WWII economics. Økonom (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ECON/RS says to grant things due weight. This is a historical section, so Marxian economics is given due weight - in fact, it should probably be given even more weight. Even in the US, the ideas of Marxian economics were taught in grade school and high school and college during the Cold War.
For a section on economics today, yes, Marxian economics would have less weight. In a historical section, it does not make sense. From 1867 to 1990 a great amount of economic writing in the east and west was about Marxian economics, the economy of the USSR and PRC and Comecon countries. You're taking the due weight of today and applying it, not to today, but to history. You're erasing any portion of the historical development of economics because it is not currently in fashion in western academia. It's like removing Isaac Newton from history of physics because people realize F=ma is not correct when dealing with high velocity or large mass.
Yes, subsections under post-WWII economics makes sense. Minimax Regret (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023[edit]

Considering the global influence of feminist economics in current economic policy, a major example being gender mainstreaming[1] among other gender-aware economic policies, [2] this heterodox school of thought deserves more weight than currently granted in the article. I suggest this should be addressed by inserting a definition of feminist economics under the subsection "Other schools of thought" under the section "History of economic thought." A suggested edit is as follows: Feminist economics emphasizes the role that gender plays in economies, challenging schools of thought that render gender invisible or support gender-oppressive economic systems.[3] The goal is to create economic research and policy analysis that is inclusive and gender-aware to encourage gender equality and improve the well-being of marginalized groups.[4] Enneyv (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.unwomen.org/en/how-we-work/un-system-coordination/gender-mainstreaming
  2. ^ https://www.state.gov/reports/united-states-strategy-on-global-womens-economic-security/
  3. ^ https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2210-1#citeas
  4. ^ https://www.iaffe.org/
In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Awhellnawr123214 (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

The criticism section is an editor-collated assemblage of various issues that are typical of discussion, debate, and the process of improvement in any rigorous academic discipline. As such, virtually the entire section is WP:OR. If there's to be a separate criticism section, it would need to be sourced to RS that survey "criticims of economics", which is what the section purports to present. SPECIFICO talk 13:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Criticism of particular view-points of specific economists does not constitute a criticism of economics as such, and should not be included in a general criticism section, which should be reserved for more fundamental, and properly sourced, critique, if any.--Økonom (talk) 09:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really a science if it has no predictive value?[edit]

Just wondering. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most science is inherently inductive, it's a real problem for some. Remsense诉 06:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is unclear[edit]

Contemporary economics uses mathematics. Economists draw on the tools of calculus, linear algebra, statistics, game theory, and computer science.[200] Professional economists are expected to be familiar with these tools, while a minority specialize in econometrics and mathematical methods. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:F6F4:8026:BB0B:458D (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is unclear about it? Remsense诉 06:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories