ADVANCED MICROECONOMIC ANALYSIS Professor F. S. Lee
(ECON 5502) Office: Manheim 202D
Spring 2010 Office Hours: By appt.
Office tel. 816-235-2543
E-mail: leefs@umkc.edu
Lecture: Wednesday, 7.00-9.45, Royall Hall, Room 312
Required Texts: B. R. Binger and E. Hoffman, W. Nicholson and C. Snyder,
Microeconomic Theory with Calculus
W. Nicholson and C. Snyder, Microeconomic Theory: Basic Principles and Extension, 10th edition
E. Silberberg and W. Suen, The Structure of Economics
A. Marshall, Principles of Economics, online version is found at http://www.econlib.org/library/Marshall/marP.html
Optional Text: H. R. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis
G. A. Jehle and P. J. Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, 2nd edition
T. Lawson, Reorienting Economics
Support Material: F. S. Lee, Microeconomic Analysis Lecture Notes
F. S. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes (lecture
notes for the course; copies will be e-mailed to you)
F. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics: A Mathematical Approach
Made Simple
http://cas.umkc.edu/econ/economics/faculty/Lee/courses/502/Math.pdf
Assessment: Take home exam handed out on February 10, 2010 and returned on
February 17, 2010—worth 15% of your final grade
In-class Exam I covers parts I - III, neoclassical microeconomics (March
3, 2010)—worth 30% of your final grade
Take home exam handed out on April 7, 2008 and returned on April 14,
2010—worth 15% of your final grade
A set essay of 2,500 – 3,000 words, typed. It is due on April 28, 2010. It is worth 10% of your grade.
Final Exam covers parts IV - VI , heterodox microeconomics (May 5,
2010 from 8.00p.m. – 10.00p.m.)—worth 30% of your final grade
Problem Sets: Problem sets will be e-mailed to you.
Course Description: The course provides a critical survey of neoclassical
microeconomic theory, including methodology, demand theory, production and costs theory, theory of competitive and non-competitive markets, distribution, welfare, and general equilibrium.
COURSE OUTLINE AND READING LIST
“Well, in our country, “ said Alice, still panting a little, “you’d generally get somewhere else—if you ran very fast for a long time….” “A slow sort of country!” said the Queen. “Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
Through the Looking-Glass
I. Historical Background to Neoclassical Microeconomics
A. Brief Survey of Classical Political Economy
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Introduction and Book I, ch. 1.
2. Bharadwaj, K. 1989. Themes in Value and Distribution: Classical
Theory Reappraised. London: Unwin Hyman, chs. 3, 4, and 5.
3. Bharadwaj, K. 1986. Classical Political Economy and Rise to Dominance
of Supply and Demand Theories. Calcutta: Longman Orient.
4. Garegnani, P. 1984. “Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists
and Marx.” Oxford Economic Papers 36: 291 – 325.
5. Walsh, V. and Gram, H. 1980. Classical and Neoclassical Theories of
General Equilibrium: Historical Origins and Mathematical Structure. New York: Oxford University Press, chs. 1-4.
6. Kurz, H. D. and Salvadori, N. (eds.) 1998. Understanding ‘Classical’
Economics: Studies in long-period theory.: London: Routledge, ch. 1.
7. Kurz and Salvadori, Theory of Production, chs. 1 and 2.
8. Eatwell, J. 1982. “Competition.” In Classical and Marxian Political
Economy, pp. 203 – 228. Edited by I. Bradley and M. Howard. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
9. Roncaglia, A. 2005. The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic
Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chs. 3, 4, 7, and 9.
10. Eatwell, J. 1974. “Controversies in the Theory of Surplus Value: Old and New.” Science and Society 38.3 (Fall): 281 – 303.
B. The Rise to Dominance of Neoclassical Economics
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book I, chs. 2, 3
2. Bharadwaj, K. 1989. Themes in Value and Distribution: Classical
Theory Reappraised. London: Unwin Hyman, ch. 6.
3. Bharadwaj, K. 1986. Classical Political Economy and Rise to Dominance
of Supply and Demand Theories. Calcutta: Longman Orient.
4. Moore, G. 2003. “John Neville Keynes’s Solution to the English
Methodenstreit.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25.1 (March): 5 – 38.
5. Moore, G. 1995. “T. E. Cliffe Leslie and the English Methodenstreit.”
Journal of the History of Economic Thought 17.1 (Spring): 57 – 77.
6. Moore, G. 1996. “The Practical Economics of Walter Bagehot.” Journal
of the History of Economic Thought 18.2 (Fall): 229 – 249.
7. Roncaglia, A. 2005. The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic
Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chs. 10 and 11.
8. Mirowski, P. 2004. The Effortless Economy of Science? Durham: Duke
University Press, chs. 13-14.
9. Mirowski, P. 1989. More Heat Than Light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Henry, J. 1995. "God and the Marginal Product: Religion and the
Development of J.B. Clark's Theory of Distribution." Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 13: 75 – 101.
11. Henry, J. F. 2009. “The Illusion of the Epoch: Neoclassical Economics
as a Case Study.”
II. Neoclassical Methodology and Models
“In our country,” she remarked, “there’s only one day at a time.” The Red Queen said “That’s a poor thin way of doing things. Now here, we mostly have days and nights two or three at a time….”
Through the Looking-Glass
A. Marshall on Methodology
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 1.
2. Marshall, A. 1972. Principles of Economics. 8th Edition. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd., Books I and II.
3. Raffaelli, T. 2003. Marshall’s Evolutionary Economics. London:
Routledge.
4. Roncaglia, A. 2005. The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic
Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 13.
B. Modern Methodology and Models
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 2.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 1-4.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 1.
4. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, chs. 1 – 6.
5. Gibbard, A. and Varian, H. R. 1978. “Economic Models.” The Journal
of Philosophy 75.11 (November): 664 – 677.
6. Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic
Science. London: Macmillan and Co. Lionel Robbins's essay can be downloaded from http://www.mises.org/books/robbinsessay2.pdf.
7. Friedman, M. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In
Essays in Positive Economics, pp. 3 – 43. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
8. Kaldor, N. 1934. “A Classificatory Note on the Determinateness of Equilibrium.” Review of Economic Studies 2: 122 – 136.
C. Criticisms
1. Keen, S. 2001. Debunking Economics. Pluto Press Australia, chs. 6, 7, and 12.
2. Clower, R. W. 1994. “Economics as an Inductive Science.” Southern
Economic Journal 60.4 (April): 805 – 814.
3. Lawson, T. 1997. Economics and Reality. London: Routledge, part II.
4. Lawson, T. 2003. Reorienting Economics. London: Routledge, ch.1.
5. Matthaei, J. 1984. “Rethinking Scarcity: Neoclassicism,
NeoMalthusianism, and NeoMarxism.” Review of Radical Political Economics 16.2/3 (Fall): 81 – 94.
6. Polanyi, K. 1968. “The Economy as Instituted Process.” In Primitive,
Archaic and Modern Economies: Essays of Karl Polanyi, pp. 139 – 174. Edited by G. Dalton. Garden City: Doubleday and Co.
7. Bigo, V. 2008. “Explaining Modern Economics (as a microcosm of
society),” Cambridge Journal of Economics 32.4: 527-554.
8. Lang, D. 2008. “Why Economists should Choose their Inheritance:
Physics and Path-independence in Economic Systems,” Review of Political Economy 20.3: 405-420.
9. Setterfield, M. 1998. “History versus Equilibrium: Nicholas Kaldor on
Historical Time and Economic Theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 22(5): 521 – 537.
10. Bresser-Pereira, L. C. 2009. “The Two Methods and the Hard Core of Economics.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 31.3: 493 – 522.
11. Martin, A. 1957. “How Economic Theory May Mislead.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 8.31: 225-36.
III. Theory of Consumer Behavior and Demand
“Living backwards!” Alice repeated in great astonishment. “I never heard of such a thing!” “__but there’s one great advantage in it, that one’s memory works both ways.” “I’m sure mine only works one way,” Alice remarked. “I can’t remember things before they happen.” “It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards,” the Queen remarked. “What sort of things do you remember best?” Alice ventured to ask. “Oh, things that happened the week after next,” the Queen replied in a careless tone.
Through the Looking-Glass
A. Marshallian Analysis of Demand
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book III, ch. 1.
2. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book III.
3. Parsons, T. 1931. “Wants and Activities in Marshall.” Quarterly Journal
of Economics 46 (November): 101 – 140.
4. Shove, G. F. 1942. “The Place of Marshall’s Principles in the
Development of Economic Theory.” The Economic Journal 52 (December): 294 – 329.
5. Walker, D. A. 1982. “A Defense of Marshall on Substitutes and
Complements in Consumption.” Eastern Economic Journal 8: 67 – 78.
6. Martinoia, R. 2003. “That Which is Desired, Which Pleases, and Which
Satisfies: Utility According to Alfred Marshall.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25.3 (September): 349 – 364.
7. Ormazabal, K. M. 1995. “The Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility in
Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 2.1 (Spring): 91 – 126.
B. Modern Utility and Preference Theory
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book III, chs. 2-3.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 5.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 3.
4. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp. 252 - 272.
5. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 94 – 115.
6. Deaton, A. Muellbauer, J. 1980. Economics and Consumer Behaviour.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1 – 47.
7. Hicks, J. R. 1946. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 11 –
25.
8. Phlips, L. 1974. Applied Consumption Analysis. New York: American
Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., ch. 1.
9. Wong, S. 1978. The Foundations of Paul Samuelson’s Revealed
Preference Theory: A Study by the Method of Rational Reconstruction. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd., ch. 3.
10. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 1.1-1.2
C. Consumer Demand Theory
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book III, ch. 4.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 6-8.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, chs. 4-6.
4. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp. 272 – 297.
5. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 116 – 143.
6. Houthakker, H. S. 1957. “An International Comparison of Household
Expenditures Patterns, Commemorating the Centenary of Engel’s Law.” Econometrica 25 (October): 532 – 551.
7. Hicks, J. R. 1946. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 26 –
41.
8. Phlips, L. 1974. Applied Consumption Analysis. New York: American
Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., ch. 2.
9. Stigler, G. J. and Becker, G. S. 1977. “De Gustibus Non Est
Disputandum.” American Economic Review 67.2 (March): 76 – 90.
10. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 1.3-1.5
D. Special Topics in Consumer Demand Theory
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book III, ch. 5.
2. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp. 297 - 299, 304 –
306, 314 – 332.
3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 144 – 159.
4. Deaton and Muellbauer, Economics and Consumer Behaviour, pp. 37 –
42, 47 – 53, and 119 - 147.
5. Phlips, L. 1974. Applied Consumption Analysis. New York: American
Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., ch. 3.
6. Hicks, J. R. 1946. Value and Capital. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 42 –
52.
7. Samuelson, P. A. 1948. “Consumption Theory in Terms of Revealed
Preference.” Economica 15 (November): 243 – 253.
8. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 2.
E. Market Demand Curve
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book III, ch. 4.
2. Deaton and Muellbauer, Economics and Consumer Behaviour, ch. 6.
3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, ch. 9.4.
F. Criticisms
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book III, ch. 6.
2. Keen, S. 2001. Debunking Economics.New York City: St. Martin’s Press, ch. 2.
3. Steedman, I. 1989. “Economic Theory and Intrinsically Non-
Autonomous Preferences and Belief.” In From Exploitation to Altruism, pp. 205 – 221. Boulder: Westview Press.
4. Baker, D. 1988. “The Logic of Choice Theory”.
5. Baker, D. 1988. “The Logic of Neo-classical Consumption Theory.” Ph.
D. dissertation. University of Michigan.
6. Rizvi, S. 1998. “Responses to Arbitrariness in Contemporary
Economics.” In New Economics and Its History, pp. 272 – 288. Edited by J. B. Davis. Durham: Duke University Press.
7. Rizvi, S. 2001. “Preference Formation and the Axioms of Choice.”
Review of Political Economy 13.2 (April): 141 – 159.
8. Sippel, R. 1997. “An Experiment on the Pure Theory of Consumer’s
Behaviour.” The Economic Journal 107 (September): 1431 – 1444.
9. Drakopoulos, S. A. 1994. “Hierarchical Choice in Economics.” Journal
of Economic Surveys 8.2: 133 – 153.
10. Veblen, T. 1909. “The Limitations of Marginal Utility.” Journal of
Political Economy 17 (November): 620 – 636.
11. Drakopoulos, S. A. and Karayiannis, A. D. 2004. “The Historical
Development of Hierarchical Behavior in Economic Thought.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 26.3 (September): 363 – 378.
12. Prasch, R. E. 2003. “Are Economists Amoral? Contemporary Economic
Thought and the Distinction Between Values and Prices.” Forum for Social Economics 32.2 (Spring): 13 – 22.
13. Davis, J. B. 2003. The Theory of the Individual in Economics: Identity
and Value. London: Routledge.
IV. Theory of Production and Costs
“There’s no use trying,” she said: “one ca’nt believe impossible things.” I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Through the Looking-Glass
A. Marshall’s Analysis of Supply
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 4.
2. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book IV.
3. Bullock, C. J. 1902. “The Variation of Productive Forces.” The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 16 (August): 473 – 513.
4. Wicksteed, P. H. 1914. “The Scope and Method of Political Economy in
the light of the `marginal’ theory of value and of distribution.” The Economic Journal 24 (March): 1 – 23.
B. Theory of Production
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, chs. 1 and 2.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 10.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 9.
4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 1 – 24.
5. Ferguson, C. E. 1969. The Neoclassical Theory of Production and
Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chs. 1 and 4.
6. Cassels, J. M. 1936. “On the Law of Variable Proportions. In
Explorations in Economics: Notes and Essays Contributed in Honor of F. W. Taussig. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., pp. 223 – 236.
7. Maxwell, W. D. 1965. “Short-Run Returns to Scale and the Production
of Services.” Southern Economic Journal (July): 1 – 14.
8. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 3.1-3.2.
C. Theory of Costs: Changes in the Level of Output
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, ch. 3.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 11.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 10.
4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 49 – 81.
5. Ferguson, C. E. 1969. The Neoclassical Theory of Production and
Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chs. 6 and 7.
6. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, pp. 175 - 224.
7. Viner, J. 1952. “Cost Curves and Supply Curves. In A.E.A. Readings in
Price Theory, pp. 198 – 232. Edited by G. J. Stigler and K. E. Boulding. Chicago: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
8. Maxwell, W. D. 1969. “Production Theory and Cost Curves.” Applied
Economics 1: 211 – 224.
9. Larson, B. 1991. “A Dilemma in the Theory of Short-Run Production
and Cost.” Southern Economic Journal 58.2 (October): 465 – 474.
10. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 3.3.
D. Special Topics in Production and Cost Theory
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, ch. 4.
2. Ferguson, C. E. 1969. The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, chs. 2, 3, 5, 8, and 9.
3. Silberberg, The Structure of Economics, pp. 225 - 251.
4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 82 – 93.
5. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 3.4.
E. Criticisms
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book V, ch. 5.
2. Keen, Debunking Economics, ch. 3.
3. Aslanbeigui, N. and Naples, M. I. 1996. “Scissors or Horizon:
Neoclassical Debates about Returns to Scale, Costs, and Long-Run Supply, 1926 – 1942.” Southern Economic Journal 64.2: 517 – 530.
4. Yordon, W. J. 1970. “The Short-Run Cost Function in Manufacturing.”
Quarterly Review of Economics and Statistics 10: 55 – 67.
5. Steedman, I. 1988. “Sraffian Interdependence and Partial Equilibrium
Analysis.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 12.1 (March): 85 – 95.
6. Yordon, W. J. 1992. “Stigler’s Adaptable and Indivisible Plant and the
Micro/Macro Schism.” History of Political Economy 24.2 (Summer): 455 – 470.
7. Dean, J. 1976. Statistical Cost Estimation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 3 - 35.
V. Price Theory: Perfect Competition
“Mr. Robertson’s remedy is to discard mathematics, and he suggests that my remedy is to discard the facts; perhaps I ought to have explained that, in the circumstances, I think it is Marshall’s theory that should be discarded.” (P. Sraffa, 1930).
A. Marshall’s Theory of Prices
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book II, ch. 5.
2. Marshall, Principles of Economics, Book V and Appendix H.
3. Loasby, B. J. 1978. “Whatever Happened to Marshall’s Theory of Value.” Scottish Journal of Political Economy 25: 1 – 12.
4. Prendergast, R. 1992. “Increasing Returns and Competitive Equilibrium—the content and development of Marshall’s theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 16 (December): 447 – 462.
5. Hart, N. 1996. “Marshall’s Theory of Value: the role of external economies.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 20 (May): 353 – 370.
6. Hart, N. 2003. “Marshall’s Dilemma: Equilibrium versus Evolution.” Journal of Economic Issues37.4 (December): 1139 – 1160.
B. The Years of Turmoil, 1920 – 1933
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 1.
2. Sraffa, P. 1925. “On the Relation Between Cost and Quantity Produced.”
3. Roncaglia, A. 1991. “Sraffa’s 1925 Article and Marshall’s Theory.”
Quaderni di Storia dell’Economia Politica 9.1-2: 373 – 397.
4. Panico, C. 1991. “Some Notes on Marshallian Supply Functions.” The
Economic Journal 101 (May): 557 – 569.
5. Maneschi, A. 1986. “A Comparative Evaluation of Sraffa’s `The Laws of
Returns under Competitive Conditions,’ and its Italian Precursor.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 10 (March): 1 – 12.
6. Pigou, A. C. 1928. “Analysis of Supply.” The Economic Journal 38
(June): 188 - 197.
7. Robbins, L. 1928. “The Representative Firm.” The Economic Journal
38 (September): 387 – 404.
8. “Increasing Returns and the Representative Firm: A Symposium.” 1930.
The Economic Journal 40 (March): 79 – 116.
9. Harrod, R. 1972. Economic Essays. Second Edition. London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd., chs. 3 – 5.
10. Mongiovi, G. 1996. “Sraffa’s Critique of Marshall: a reassessment.”
Cambridge Journal of Economics 20 (March): 207 – 224.
11. Marcuzzo, M. C. 1994. “R. F. Kahn and Imperfect Competition.”
Cambridge Journal of Economics 18 (February): 25 – 40.
12. O’Shaughnessy, T. J. 1994. “Kahn on the Economics of the Short
Period.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 18 (February): 41 – 54.
13. Aslanbeigui, N. and Naples, M. I. 1996. “Scissors or Horizon:
Neoclassical Debates about Returns to Scale, Costs, and Long-Run Supply, 1926 – 1942.” Southern Economic Journal 64.2: 517 – 530.
14. Freni, G. 2001. “Sraffa’s Early Contribution to Competitive Price
Theory.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 8.3 (Autumn): 363 – 390.
15. Robbins, L. 1930. “On the Elasticity of Demand for Income in Terms of
Effort.” The Economic Journal 40 (June): 123 – 129.
16. Roncaglia, A. 2005. The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic
Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 16.
C. Perfect Competition and the Supply Curve
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 2.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 12-13.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, chs. 11-12.
4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 25 – 48, 215 – 235.
5. Kaldor, N. 1934. “The Equilibrium of the Firm.” The Economic Journal
44 (March): 60 – 76.
6. Jaffee, W. 1967. “Walras’ Theory of Tatonnement: A Critique of Recent
Interpretations.” The Journal of Political Economy 75: 1 – 19
7. Walker, D. A. 1973. “Edgeworth’s Theory of Recontracts.” The
Economic Journal 83: 138 – 149.
8. Robinson, J. 1966. Collected Economic Papers Vol. 1. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, pp. 20 – 34.
9. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 3.5, 4.1, 4.3.
D. Criticisms
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 4.
2. Keen, Debunking Economics, ch. 3.
3. Aslanbeigui, N. and Naples, M. I. 1996. “Scissors or Horizon:
Neoclassical Debates about Returns to Scale, Costs, and Long-Run Supply, 1926 – 1942.” Southern Economic Journal 64.2: 517 – 530.
4. Sraffa, P. 1925. “On the Relation Between Cost and Quantity Produced.”
5. Panico, C. 1991. “Some Notes on Marshallian Supply Functions.” The
Economic Journal 101 (May): 557 – 569.
6. Ozanne, A. 1996. “Do Supply Curves Slope Up? The Empirical
Relevance of the Sraffian Critique of Neoclassical Production Economics.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 20.6 (November): 749 – 762.
VI. Price Theory: Imperfect Competition and the Firm
A. Monopoly
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VI, ch. 3.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 15.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 14.
4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 236 – 259.
5. Hicks, J. R. 1935. “Annual Survey of Economic Theory: The Theory of
Monopoly.” Econometrica 3 (January): 1 – 20.
B. Monopolistic/Imperfect Competition
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VII, chs. 1 and 2.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 16.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 15.
4. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, chs. 4, 5, 6, 7, and
9.
5. Robinson, J. 1938. The Economics of Imperfect Competition. London:
Macmillan and Co., Ltd., chs. 1 – 14.
6. Harrod, R. 1972. Economic Essays. Second Edition. London: The
Macmillan Press Ltd., chs. 7 - 8.
7. Kaldor, N. 1960. Essays on Value and Distribution. Glencoe: The Free
Press, chs. 3 – 5.
8. Pigou, A. C. 1933. “A Note on Imperfect Competition.” The Economic
Journal 43 (March): 108 – 112.
9. Robinson, J. 1966. Collected Economic Papers Vol. 1. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, pp. 35 - 43.
10. Sherrard, A. 1951. “Advertising, Product Variation, and the Limits of
Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 59 (April): 126 – 142.
11. Keppler, J. H. 1998. “The Genesis of ‘Positive Economics’ and the
Rejection of Monopolistic Competition Theory: A Methodological Debate.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 22.3 (May): 261 – 276.
12. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 4.2.3.
C. Oligopoly
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VII, ch. 3.
2. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 16.
3. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 15.
4. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, pp. 285 – 313.
5. Chamberlin, The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, ch. 3.
6. Hall, R. L. and Hitch, C. J. 1939. “Price Theory and Business Behavior.”
Oxford Economic Papers 2 (May): 12 – 45.
7. Lerner, A. P. 1934. “The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of
Monopoly Power.” The Review of Economic Studies 1 (June): 157 – 175.
8. Stigler, G. J. 1968. The Organization of Industry. Homewood: Richard
D. Irwin, Inc., chs. 5, 9, and 18.
9. Ono, Y. 1982. “Price Leadership: A theoretical analysis.” Economica
49: 11 – 20.
10. Hotelling, H. 1929. “Stability in Competition.” The Economic Journal
39 (March): 41 – 57.
11. Koutsoyiannis, A. 1979. Modern Microeconomics.Second edition.
London: Macmillan, chs. 9 – 14.
12. Reid, G. 1981. The Kinked Demand Curve Analysis of Oligopoly.
Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press.
13. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 4.2.
D. Behavioral and Managerial Theories of the Firm
1. Lee, Neoclassical Microeconomics Lecture Notes, Book VII, ch. 4.
2. Koutsoyiannis, A. 1979. Modern Microeconomics. Second edition.
London: Macmillian, chs. 15 - 18.
3. Scitovsky, T. 1943. “A Note on Profit Maximization and its
Implications.” The Review of Economic Studies 11 (Winter): 57 – 60.
4. Machlup, F. 1967. “Theories of the Firm: Marginalist, Behavioral,
Managerial.” The American Economic Review 57 (March): 1 – 33.
5. Baumol, W. J. 1958. “On the Theory of Oligopoly.” Economica 25
(August): 187 – 198.
6. Baumol, W. J. 1962. “On the Theory of the Expansion of the Firm.” The
American Economic Review 52 (December): 1078 – 1087.
7. Marris, R. L. 1963. “A Model of the Managerial Enterprise.” Quarterly
Journal of Economics 77 (May): 185 – 209.
8. Williamson, J. 1966. “Profit, Growth and Sales Maximization.”
Economica 33 (February): 1 – 16.
9. Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. 1963. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., chs. 1 – 9.
E. Game Theory
1. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 15.
2. Fisher, F. M. 1989. “Games Economists Play: A Noncooperative View.”
Rand Journal of Economics 20.1 (Spring): 113 – 124.
3. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, ch. 15.
4. Rizvi, S. A. T. 1994b. “Game Theory to the Rescue?” Contributions to
Political Economy 13: 1 – 28.
5. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 7.
6. Bunge, M. 1996. Finding Philosophy in Social Science. New Haven:
Yale University Press, ch. 14.
7. Bunge, M. 1999. The Sociology-Philosophy Connection. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, ch. 5.
F. Problems with Marginalism
1. Keen, Debunking Economics, ch.4.
2. Lee, F. S. 1984. “The Marginalist Controversy and the Demise of Full
Cost Pricing.” Journal of Economic Issues 18 (December): 1107 – 1132.
3. Lee, F. S. and Irving-Lessmann, J. 1992. “The Fate of an Errant
Hypothesis: The Doctrine of Normal-Cost Prices.” History of Political Economy 24.2: 273 – 309.
4. Nordquist, G. L. 1965. “The Breakup of the Maximization Principle.”
Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 5: 33 – 46.
5. Bianchi, M. 1990. “The Unsatisfactoriness of Satisficing: From Bounded
Rationality to Innovative Rationality.” Review of Political Economy 2 (July): 149 – 167.
6. Hodgson, G. M. 1993. “Institutional Economics: Surveying the ‘Old’
and the ‘New’.” Metroeconomica 44.1: 1 – 28.
VII. Factor Input Markets and Distribution
A. Demand and Supply of Factor Inputs Under Competitive Conditions
1. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 17-18.
2. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, chs. 16-17.
3. Michl, T. R. 1987. “Is There Evidence for a Marginalist Demand for Labor.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 11 (December): 361 – 373.
B. Demand and Supply of Factor Inputs Under Non-Competitive Conditions
1. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, chs. 17-18.
2. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 16-17.
C. Distribution of Income
D. Criticisms
1. Fleetwood, S. 2006. “Rethinking Labour markets: a critical-realist-
socioeconomic perspective.” Capital and Class 89 (Summer): 59 – 89.
VIII. General Equilibrium and Welfare Economics
A. General Equilibrium
1. Binger and Hoffman, Microeconomics with Calculus, ch. 14.
2. Nicholson and Snyder, Microeconomic Theory, ch. 13.
3. Walsh and Gram, Classical and Neoclassical Theories of General Equilibrium, chs. 6 – 10, 14.
4. Ingrao, B. and Israel, G. 1990. The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press, chs. 1, 4, 7, 10 – 12.
5. Hicks, J. R. 1960. “Linear Theory.” Economic Journal 70 (December): 671 – 709.
6. Punzo, L. F. 1989. “Von Neumann and Karl Menger’s Mathematical Colloquium.” In John von Neumann and Modern Economics, pp. 29 – 65. Edited by M. Dore, S. Chakravarty, and R. Goodwin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7. Koopmans, T. C. 1957. Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York City: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., ch. 1.
8. Weintraub, E. R. 2002. How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham: Duke University Press, chs. 1 – 4.
9. Weintraub, E. R. and Mirowski, P. 1994. “The Pure and the Applied: Bourbakism Comes to Mathematical Economics.” Science in Context 7.2 Summer): 245 – 272.
10. Punzo, L. F. 1991. “The School of Mathematical Formalism and the Viennese Circle of Mathematical Economists.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought13.1 (Spring): 1 – 18.
11. Giocoli, N. 2003. “Fixing the Point: The Contribution of Early Game Theory to the Tool-Box of Modern Economics.” The Journal of Economic Methodology 10.1 (March): 1 – 39.
12. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, chs. 17 – 18.
13. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, chs. 17 and 21.
14. Roncaglia, A. 2005. The Wealth of Ideas: A History of Economic
Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ch. 12.
15. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 5.
B. Welfare Economics
1. Varian, Microeconomic Analysis, chs. 17 and 22.
2. Silberberg and Suen, The Structure of Economics, ch. 19.
3. Jehle and Reny, Advanced Microeconomic Theory, ch. 6.
C. Criticisms
1. Ackerman, F. 2002. “Still Dead After all these Years: Interpreting the
Failure of General Equilibrium Theory.” Journal of Economic Methodology 9.2: 119 – 139.
2. Montes, L. 2003. “Smith and Newton: Some Methodological Issues
Concerning General Economic Equilibrium Theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 27.5 (September): 623 – 646.
3. Clower, R. W. 1995. “Axiomatics in Economics.” Southern Economic
Journal 62.2 (October): 307 – 319.
4. Rizvi, S. A. T. 1991. “Specialisation and the Existence Problem in
General Equilibrium Theory.” Contributions to Political Economy 10: 1 – 20.
5. Rizvi, S. A. T. 1994. “The Microfoundations Project in General
Equilibrium Theory.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 18.4 (August): 357 – 377.
IX. Neoclassical Microeconomics: Is it a science?
What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
1. Mahner, M. 2007. “Demarcating Science from Non-Science.” In T.
Kuipers (ed.) Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues, 515-75. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2. Bunge, M. 1998. Social Science under Debate: a philosophical debate. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, ch. 3.
3. Bunge, M. 1983. Epistemology and Methodology II: Understanding the World. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, chs. 13-15.