Sickonomics: Diagnoses and remedies

G.M. Hodgson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    12 Citations (Scopus)
    200 Downloads (Pure)


    In their recent analysis of the alleged decay in modern economics, Ben Fine and Dimitris Milonakis claim to find its source and origin in the "marginal revolution" of the 1870s. They argue that this development led to "methodological individualism" and the detachment of economics from society and history. I contest their account of the marginal revolution and of the role of Alfred Marshall among others. They also fail to provide an adequate definition of methodological individualism. I suggest that neoclassical economics adopted a denuded concept of the social rather than removing these factors entirely. No such removal is possible in principle. It is also mistaken to depict neoclassical economics as the science of prices and the market. In truth, neoclassical economics fails to capture the true nature of markets. I consider some sketch an alternative explanation of the sickness of modern economics, which focuses on institutional developments since World War II.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)357-376
    Number of pages20
    JournalReview of Social Economy
    Issue number3
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2011


    Dive into the research topics of 'Sickonomics: Diagnoses and remedies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this