Economics as Ideology: Keynes, Laski, Hayek, and the Creation of Contemporary Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economics as Ideology: Keynes, Laski, Hayek, and the Creation of Contemporary Politics , Kenneth R. Hoover, Rowman and Littlefield, 2003, pp. xv, 329. Although it was published two years ago, this book remains relevant to many contemporary debates about the optimal relationship between market and state institutions, especially if we want to set these debates within a historical context. To provide an account of the development of economic thinking in the twentieth century, Hoover carefully examines the lives, personalities and writings of three emblematic thinkers: Harold Laski, John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich A. Hayek. The title is somewhat misleading in the sense that it refers to a particular meaning of the term “ideology” that may not be shared by all those who come across this book, but the author justifies it by explaining that he takes ideology to mean a set of a priori contestable propositions that are posed as being unchallengeable or, in other words, have been “decontested.” Thus the question he is interested in is: “Why did these thinkers decontest ideas about government and the market in the way they did?” (4).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".