NEW CLASSICAL DISCOURSE: A METHODOLOGICAL EXAMINATION OF RATIONAL EXPECTATIONS ECONOMIC

This study analyzes the development of the argumentation in new classical economics (economics with rational expectations), and provides an interpretative framework which might have more general applicability to the history of economic thought.;The central questions are: Why is persistent disagreement in economics possible? and, How do economists argue?;The interpretative framework provides a way to approach these questions. We distinguish among levels of discourse in economics such as the theoretical, empirical, and philosophical levels, and the transformations between these levels. To convince people of the value of an idea, economists construct arguments in support of that idea. They develop models (theoretical argument), conduct empirical tests (empirical argument) and refer to a vision of society (philosophical argument).;Transformation between levels account for the weakness of economic discourse. Economists have to rely on judgments when they transform, for example, theoretical into empirical arguments. Some of these judgments are embodied in conventions, but many are left to the individual scientist. Here the personal factor enters economic discourse. It is reflected in the adherence to a particular vision or to a distinctive style of arguing. Transformations allow occurrence of disagreement, the personal factor explains its persistence.;The history of new classical economics illustrates the strength of the interpretative framework. We show that new classical economists operate on different levels of discourse which are more or less autonomous. Examination of these levels produce several useful insights in the ways economists argue.