History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective

Rating:
Summary: The Truth is out about Neoclassical Economics, its bunk.
Review: E.K. Hunt's book provided an excellent as well as indepth portrayal of the development of economic thought. The book explains in throrough detail the various points of origin for economic theory and the two roads that have been taken most prevalently since the time of Adam Smith. The strength of the book lies in its analysis of modern mainstream theory and the documentation of its shortcomings. E.K. Hunt exposes the weaknesses of mainstream economics while at the same time offering an explanation for its continued study in the face of its theoretical inaccuracies. Mainstream economics carries on because it is on ideological friendly terms with the existing economic system. Regardless of the flaws in mainstream theory, and in capitalism in general, the continued reproduction of the economic system relies on the ability of those "scientists," whose responsibility it is to study the system, to provide a theoretical framework consistent with the reigning system. Without a scientific basis for its defense, the economic system and the economic elites benefitting from the system would have a hard time defending the results of a much less than perfect market economy. In the future I suggest reviewers of this book take the time to closely analyze the functioning of the capitalist economy before writing a review based solely on a seminar class. However, for many I suppose ignorance is bliss. Thank goodness E.K. Hunt doesn't view the world from the perspective of one's head in sand.

Rating:
Summary: The Truth is out about Neoclassical Economics, its bunk.
Review: E.K. Hunt's book provided an excellent as well as indepth portrayal of the development of economic thought. The book explains in throrough detail the various points of origin for economic theory and the two roads that have been taken most prevalently since the time of Adam Smith. The strength of the book lies in its analysis of modern mainstream theory and the documentation of its shortcomings. E.K. Hunt exposes the weaknesses of mainstream economics while at the same time offering an explanation for its continued study in the face of its theoretical inaccuracies. Mainstream economics carries on because it is on ideological friendly terms with the existing economic system. Regardless of the flaws in mainstream theory, and in capitalism in general, the continued reproduction of the economic system relies on the ability of those "scientists," whose responsibility it is to study the system, to provide a theoretical framework consistent with the reigning system. Without a scientific basis for its defense, the economic system and the economic elites benefitting from the system would have a hard time defending the results of a much less than perfect market economy. In the future I suggest reviewers of this book take the time to closely analyze the functioning of the capitalist economy before writing a review based solely on a seminar class. However, for many I suppose ignorance is bliss. Thank goodness E.K. Hunt doesn't view the world from the perspective of one's head in sand.

Rating:
Summary: Pseduo-science
Review: If ever the science of economics was raised from it's dismal beginnings by powerful prose and concise critics, this book surely does not add to effort. Rather, Hunt drivels on for pages about Marx's moral and philosophical complaints, while Smith, the founder of economics receives hardly a nod. This book attempts to critique by ignoring the best arguments of it's subject, then proceeds to propogandize the reader with no mention of competing views. The author's floundering is less critical and helpful in the history of economics and more a manifesto of philosophical tunnel vision.

Should the author choose to honestly revise this book, it's benefit to students and the economic field will be found in a deep and penetrating treatment of an entire history. Critical views and competing views of each figure and doctrine would abound on its pages.

As it stands now, it's a mixed attempt at a call for revolution, a philosophical manifesto, and most deceivingly, a sorry excuse for a so called "critical" history.

Rating:
Summary: Strong on Some Points - But an Unfair Treatment Overall
Review: This book is subtitled "A Critical Perspective"; I think "A Biased Perspective" would have been much more fitting.

Mr. Hunt, a leading theorist on Marxian economics, has compiled a survey of the greatest economic thinkers since Adam Smith. He digs into this rich history with a sharp realism, seeking to explain the motivations behind today's neoclassical tradition. At many points he is insightful. But ultimately, he fails to consider his own motivations in writing the book. The result is a very one-sided analysis of a dynamic subject, which leaves the reader with a bitter aftertaste in the mouth.

The primary methodology Hunt employs is Critical Realism. He seeks to debunk the theories of those in the neoclassical tradition by attacking them personally. It does not make for a very convincing analysis. First of all, Hunt is very uneven in where he applies his scalpel. Writers such as Bastait, Malthus, Riccardo, and J.B. Clark are supposedly "discredited" by their class sympathies, writers in the Marxian tradition (and Marx in particular) are incredulously excused.

When Hunt does engage his opponent on a theoretical level, he is much less than fair. He tends to set up hollow straw-men as his targets, strike them with an obtuse and unwieldy club, and declare himself the victor. The subtleties and complexities a serious theoretician enjoys are nowhere to be found in Hunt's "critical" analysis.

To point out these problems is not to say that Hunt's book is of no value. It absolutely is. In the places where Hunt shines, he does an excellent job - offering broad and historical perspectives on why economics is the way it is today, and how it could be different. The reader is bound to walk away with a much more critical and thoughtful perspective of modern capitalism.

Nonetheless, this does not excuse the serious problems of bias this book contains. A person interested the subject would do better to search out a more objective introduction and then to return to Hunt's book for a taste of the radicals' perspective. I give this book three stars due to its mix of the good and the bad.