The neoclassical theory in South America: myths and realities

La teoría neoclásica en América del Sur: mitos y realidades

• John Alexander Campuzano Vásquez Universidad Técnica de Machala

Keywords: heterodoxia, neoclassical, rationalism, instrumentalism, South America

Abstract

This paper analyzes the adverse theoretical load that exists from the academic and institutional scenarios on the incidence of neoclassical theory in the economic management of governments in South America; for which documents that study the origins of this economic current are reviewed considering its main postulates. At the same time, articles by important authors and their contributions are examined, as well as the criticisms that are made about whether neoclassical theory is the mainstream at the present time. In this descriptive bibliographic journey it is found that the three central postulates of neoclassical theory such as rationalism, instrumentalism and methodological balance have not been consolidated or have not been applied in the countries analyzed by the active intervention of government institutionalism that predominates in most of the countries of South America, and by the economic heterodoxy that the rulers use according to their political and ideological origin. Likewise, the existence of myths that take away validity as an economic model that causes the macroeconomic imbalances that are visualized in times of crisis in South America is determined, being able to verify the presence of price control mechanisms, strong presence of public institutions that guarantee presence state in markets for goods and services and laws that grant state monopolies against private competition.

References

Addleson, M. (1996). Equilibrium versus understanding. Towards the rehumanization of economics within social theory. New York (United States of America). Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy.

Alesina, A.; Ardagna, S. & Trebbi, F. (2006). “Who adjusts and when? The political economy of reforms”. IMF Staff Papers. Vol. 53. Special Issue. Pp. 1-29. Disponible en: http:// www.jstor.org/stable/30036020. (Consulta: 16-01-2019).

Arnsperger, C. & Varoufakis, Y. (2006). “What is neoclassical economics? The three axioms responsible for its theoretical oeuvre, practical irrelevance and, thus, discursive power. Panoeconomicus. Vol. 53. No. 1. Pp. 5-18. Disponible en: https://panoeconomicus. org/index.php/jorunal/article/view/298/28. (Consulta: 19-12-2018).

Borgucci, E. (1999). “El pensamiento económico neoclásico y el positivismo lógico”. Revista de Ciencias Sociales. Vol. 5. No. 3. Pp. 35-55. Disponible en: https:// produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/rcs/article/view/25058/25671. (Consulta: 20-10-2018).

Cataño, J. (2001). ¿Por qué el predominio de la teoría neoclásica? Cuadernos de Economía. Vol. 20. No. 30. Pp. 281-291. Disponible en: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/ceconomia/article/view/24447/25035. (Consulta: 01-02-2019).

Colander, D. (2000). “The death of neoclassical economics”. Journal of the History of Economic Thought. Vol. 22. No. 2. Pp. 127-143. Disponible en: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24084635_The_Death_of_Neoclassical_Economics. (Consulta: 10-02-2019).

Crespo, R. (1998). “La crisis del modelo neoclásico”. Revista Económica. Vol. 44. No. 1-2. Pp. 29-59. Disponible en: https://revistas.unlp.edu.ar/Economica/article/view/5433/4459. (Consulta: 20-03-2019).

Etxezarreta, M. (Coord.) (2004). Crítica a la economía ortodoxa. Barcelona (España). Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.

Garegnani, P. (2011). “Capital in the neoclassical theory”. Pp. 45-62. Nómadas. Revista Crítica de Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas. Disponible en: http://theoria.eu/nomadas/ MA_sraffa/pierangelogaregnani.pdf. (Consulta: 04-04-2019).

Garnett, R. (2011). “Pluralim, academic freedom and heterodox economics”. Review of Radical Political Economics. Vol 43. No. 4. Pp. 562-572. Disponible: https://doi. org/10.1177/0486613411402647. (Consulta: 10-03-2019).

Hudea, O. (2015). “Classical, neoclassical and new classical theories and their impacto on macroeconomic modelling”. Procedia Economics and Finance. Vol. 23. Pp. 309-312. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00506. (Consulta: 21-04-2019).

Hywell, J. (1988). Introducción a las teorías modernas del crecimiento económico. Madrid (España). Antoni Bosch, Editor.

Keynes, J. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Disponible en: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/125515/1366_KeynesTheoryofEmployment.pdf. (Consulta: 18-01-2019).

Lawson, T. (2013). “What is this scholl called neoclassical economics?” Cambridge Journal of Economics. Vol. 37. No. 5. Pp. 947-983. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ bet027. (Consulta: 25-03-2019).

Lee, F. (2011). “The pluralism debate in heterodox economics”. Review of Radical Political Economics. Vol. 43. No. 4. Pp. 540-551. Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.1177/0486613411402643. (Consulta: 26-02-2019).

Lozano, F. y Moreno, J. (2018). ¿Se comparte la misma idea al utilizar el término neoclasicismo? Cuadernos de Economía. Vol. 37. No. 73. Pp. 25-44. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.15446/cuad.econ.v37n73.55414. (Consulta: 23-06-2019).

Marqués, G. (2005). “Las asignaturas pendientes del liberalismo económico”. Revista Mad. No. 12. Pp. 1-10. Disponible en: https://revistamad.uchile.cl/index.php/RMAD/article/ view/14680/15012. (Consulta:05-05-2019 ).

Mearman, A. (2011). “Pluralism, heterodoxy, and the rhetoric of distinction”. Review of Radical Political Economics. Vol. 43. No. 4. Pp. 552-61. Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.1177/0486613411402644. (Consulta: 15-04-2019).

Mirowski, P. (2013). Never let a serious crisis go to waste. How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. London (United Kingdom). Verso Books.

Montoya, C. (2009). “Keynes y neoclásicos: una propuesta para la salida de la crisis”. Revista Ciencias Estratégicas. Vol. 17. No. 21. Pp. 89-104. Disponible en: https:// www.redalyc.org/pdf/1513/151312820008.pdf. (Consulta: 25-06-2019).

Puyana, A. (2018). “Crisis económica y crisis de la teoría económica. Notas para el debate”. Perfiles Latinoamericanos. Vol. 26. No. 51. Pp. 351-278. Disponible en: https://doi. org/10.18504/pl2651-014-20. (Consulta: 22-05-2019).

Rincón, E.; Acosta, N. y Añez, C. (2016). “La revalorización del pensamiento económico latinoamericano sobre el desarrollo”. Cuadernos Latinoamericanos. Vol. 28. No. 50. Pp. 71-94.
Robbins, L. (1932). An essay on the nature and significance of economic science. London (United Kingdom). MacMillan. Disponible en: http://mises.org/books/robbinsessay.pdf. (Consulta: 05-02-2019).

Roldán, G. (2012). “Una aportación ignorada a la teoría neoclásica al estudio de la migración laboral”. Migración y Desarrollo. Vol. 10. No. 19. Pp. 61-91. Disponible en: http:// www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/myd/v10n19/v10n19a3.pdf. (Consulta: 20-01-2019).