Gender and Economic Ideologies

Abstract

This article begins with an exposition and critique of ahistorical approach of neoclassical economics (similar approaches have been criticized -- and an historical approach proposed -- in anthropology by Marvin Harris, 1989, and in sociology by Eric Olin Wright, et al., 1992). Then, there a discussion of two approaches, versus critical. By official mean version of Marx taught in former Soviet Union and by most Communist parties for 70 years. By Marxist mean all those Marxists who are independent and not tied hand and foot to a particular dogma or an party program. historical view of critical Marxism identical in many respects to view of U.S. institutionalists. Many of points made here in terminology could be stated equally well in institutionalist terminology, but for lack of space parallels are developed only briefly in one section. Equilibrium and Universal Laws in Neoclassical Economics main tool used by neoclassical economists notion of equilibrium. It may be defined as follows: market or set of markets in equilibrium if agents participating in that market(s) have no cause to alter their plans (how much they desire to buy and sell) (Weeks, 1989, p. 36). This type of analysis assumes that real economic world mostly in balance, or that it adjusting back to balance by marginal or incremental changes after some exogenous shock. This approach rules out evolutionary change as central point of analysis. Paul Samuelson notes that a neoclassical equilibrium theorist naturally tended to think of models in which things settled down to a unique position independently of initial (Samuelson, quoted and discussed in Mirowski, 1989, p. 390). Not only economic world viewed as an automatic equilibriating process in capitalism, but same sort of analysis applied to any society observed by neoclassicals, no matter how different its institutions may be. Thus, eminent neoclassical theorist, Lord Robbins, attacks the view that laws of Economics are limited to certain conditions of time and space, that they are purely historical in character (Robbins, 1935, p. 80). On contrary, Robbins sees land, labor, and capital in every society; and he finds rational marginalist optimization behavior by consumers and producers in every society. specific institutions of slavery or feudalism or primitive clan ownership do not change marginal laws at all, in his view. Thus, Robbins claims: No one will really question universal applicability of such assumptions as existence of scales of relative evaluation, or of different factors of production ... (1935, p. 81). Robbins claims that one may draw very important conclusions from such universally valid assumptions. A similar argument was made by neoclassical economist, G. C. Archibald, who stated that economic problem consists of scarce resources and insatiable needs; he concluded that this problem is universal: it transcends times and space, political or social organization From universality of economic problem, it also follows that if theory of firm proves to be a useful portion of theory of allocation in a capitalist context, so it must be in a Communist context; there must be a Soviet analogy (quoted in Sawyer, 1989, p. 19). So same analysis can apply to neolithic cave dwellers, Egyptian pharaohs, feudal nobility in France, and modern English financiers. As one example of this approach, neoclassicals see competition in market place as a product of an unchanging individual psychology -- whereas Marxists and institutionalists see it as a product of particular socio-economic relations. In neoclassical view, The 'market' represents rationality per se, outside any specific social context (Amin, 1990, p. …