l0sning pâ det opstillede problem)? Sker dette, mister vores teorier let den n0d-
vendige virkelighedsdimension, vil post-keynesianske og andre heterodokse
0konomer argumentera.4
Som et eksempel pâ denne problemstilling, hvor 0konomiske termer og udsagn
ændrer betydning som f0lge af formalisering, nævner Backhouse (1998:1853)
Adam Smiths vision om markedsmekanismens effektivitet i form af de sâkaldte
usynlige hænder, der koordinerer eftersp0rgsels- som Udbudssignalerne pâ det
enkelte marked. I sin moderne iklædning (Arrow-Debreu formuleringen) forstâr
vi som 0konomer noget ganske bestemt ved denne allokeringsmekanisme. Nok
kan vi udtrykke denne erkendelse mere præcist end tidligere, men samtidig har
vi (i forhold til Adam Smith) ændret pâ det 0konomiske set up, idet: Agents ha-
ve become ’rationel’ profit and utility maximisers; freedom to bring one’s capi-
tal into competition with anyone else’s has become perfect competition; and so
on. The theorem has changed into something very different from the original: it
is no longer a proposition about the real world, but a theorem about properties
of an abstract mathematical model,5 Backhouse (1998:1853). Netop en sâdan
mangel pâ realisme er formalismens akilleshæl. Inden for 0konomi sâvel som
inden for matematik, jævnf0r von Neumann: As a mathematical discipline trav-
els far form its empirical source, or still more, if it is a second and third
generation only indirectly inspired by ideas coming from ’reality’, it is beset
with grave dangers. It becomes more and more purely aestheticizing, more and
more purely l’art pour l’art.6 Derimod er formalisme anvendt med omtanke og
forstâelse for konteksttualiteten et gode, argumenterer Backhouse. En sâdan ap-
4 Eller med Chick (1998:1865): The point has often been made that assumptions, and even prob-
lems themselves, are chosen more for their mathematical convenience/tractability than for their
economic relevance. This procedure is defended by Friedman’s instrumentalism, but that
methodology is far from universally accepted.
5 Og dermed har vi indsnævret vores analytiske handlefrihed ganske betydeligt, idet The Arrow-
Debreu model is only one possible formalisation of Smith’s invisible hand proposition. Even if
perfect competition and a full set of markets for dated, state-contingent commodities are neces-
sary for the Arrow-Debreu conceptualisation of the invisible hand to operate properly, it does
not follow that there are not other conceptualisations in which these assumptions are not nec-
essary, Backhouse (1998:1953).
6 Citatet er fra 1947, her hentet fra Backhouse (1998:1856). Et tilsvarende specifikt syn pâ an-
vendelsen af realismefjern formalisme i 0konomi kan findes hos Morishima (1991), der kritisk
belyser nogle udviklingstendenser inden for den generelle ligevægtsteori. Eksempelvis advares
der om, at generelle ligevægtsokonomer have sunk into excessive mental aestheticism. If this