What is neoclassical economics?

According to the writer of the article The Death of Neoclassical Economics there are two ways to define neoclassical economics. You can define it by certain time period in history economic research. According to David Colander neoclassical economics denotes time between late 19th century to some time before the mid 20th century. The exact decades vary and he gives two widely used examples for defining the decades, either from 1870s to around 1930s or from 1890s to 1939. Other way to define neoclassical economics is through its focus points and main attributes: use of calculus and the use of marginal productivity. Colander gives more detailed description of the attributes: 1. Neoclassical economics focuses on using resources at a point in time, 2. Neoclassical economics accepts utilitarianism and its central role in economics, 3. Neoclassical economics focuses on marginal trade offs and applying calculus on them, 4. Neoclassical economics assumes farsighted rationality, meaning people are assumed to be rational about decisions that include future pay offs,5. Neoclassical economics accepts methodological individualism, meaning it assumes single people as agents in economy that try to maximise their benefit and 6. Neoclassical economics is structured around a general equilibrium conception of the economy meaning that there is always one stable equilibrium that economy converges to. In what ways is the concept of neoclassical economics problematic? Colander argues that the concept is widely misused and therefore it has lost its purpose as a classificational term. One biggest problem the writer has with the use of the term is how its merged with modern economics. According to him many economists use the term inconsistently and gives several examples like Roger Backhouse merging neoclassical and modern economics and Robert Ekelund & Robert Hebert mixing neoclassical economics with modern. Colander states that term neoclassical economics is popularly used to in two ways: 1 to describe economics between around 1870 to 1930 or 2. to compare modern economics in reference to heterodox economics. These two usages of the word are in contradiction to each other. He continues by stating that even though neoclassical economics and modern economics do have confluences they are still in essence different things. Because of this the term neoclassical economics does not work well as a classification and therefore it should not be used anymore. The writer gives support to his argument by referring to several other writers who too think that the term neoclassical economics is problematic and should not be used anymore. How does Austrian theory differ from neoclassical economics and how does it provide another framework into understanding economic decision making and the organization of economic activity? Austrian theory differs from neoclassical economics in several ways. According to Sherwin Rosen neoclassical economics mainly are concerned with the establishment of economic equilibrium under fully known or given conditions of resource availability, technology and preferences. Austrian economics on the contrary assumes that information is highly decentralized, imperfect and widespread. This means that in neoclassical economics individuals are rational agents that try to maximize their benefit given a situation and their preferences. Information and value are know and it is possible to always find an equilibrium

state. In Austrian economics the economy is in constant dynamic state. The economy is changing and evolving and agents in the economy are trying to find ways to exploit unforeseen opportunities. <<<<Maybe the technology cycle Austrian economics and neoclassical economics also differ on their attitude towards the invisible hand. In neoclassical economics