Thread by @rodrikdani

Re utility of classics in Economics, I’d like to take a position that I think is intermediate between @BrankoMilan and @florianederer. There's a sense in which Economics is like the natural sciences, with cumulative progress and you only need to read the latest articulation. +

So to understand comparative advantage, or efficiency of markets or a particular mode of oligopoly you do not need to read Ricardo, Smith, or Cournot. Contemporary textbooks are much better at explaining the theory, clarifying where it applies, and presenting relevant evidence. +

But there is also a sense in which Economics is not like the natural sciences. Economics advances not by simply refining existing models (vertically), but by expanding the range of models and enlarging the library of explanations (horizontally). +

This is because social reality (unlike physical reality) is the result entirely of human choice, and hence inherently malleable. Different models are required for different times and circumstances. (This is the point of my book Economics Rules. wwnorton.com/books/97803933…)

And here the classics are indispensable because they are vastly richer in the hypotheses and circumstances they entertain than the specifics of a particular model we remember them by. +

Reading Smith, Marx, or Marshall will give you insights about how markets operate in general that you will never get from MWG. That is why we periodically “rediscover” classics, when the circumstances and focus of our explanations change and we search for new answers. END