[14] 在政策实务上，新古典经济理论典范「隐藏」新自由主义之泛市场经济主义的意识形态；”The most forceful and coherent defense of neoliberalism appears in mainstream economic theory, or ‘neoclassical theory’. In the view of neoclassical economics, the market is an extraordinary mechanism that allows a society - … - to organize the production and distribution of goods and services efficiently.” ( DeMartino, 2000, p. 4).

惟在一个「无政府或小政府」市场经济体制里，谁是「老大」？谁是真正的获利者？”…, the proponents of neoliberalism have generated the most powerful economic ideology of the past several centuries. In this account, the success of neoclassical theory stems not from its purported scientific principles, objectivity or verisimilitude. It results instead from the attractiveness of the vision of science to which it aspires, and from the power of the interests which are be served by the type of economic system that it celebrates. The persuasiveness of the neoclassical defense of neoliberalism is therefore grounded in its rhetorical attributes and political consequences, not its epistemological properties.” (DeMartino, 2000, p. 18).

not their diversity but rather their great similarity. The similarity of graduate training is something many members of the profession have long suspected.”(Hansen, 1991, p. 1061)。

从认识论的角度，Kapp在论及制度学派之贡献时，亦特别强调：”It is important to emphasize first that institutionalism starts from a basis of dissent – i.e. a common critique of the conventional wisdom, … I shall mention here only two major epistemological insights: 1. That scientific inquiry always proceeds within a cultural matrix – in other words, all theorizing operates within a framework of preconceptions which is not of our own making but is taken over from society - …These inherited preconceptions which are at the root of all our knowledge – including our scientific knowledge – need to be made explicit, and must be held up for critical examination. In fact, any improvement of our scientific knowledge presupposes such critical awareness. 2. A second contribution of American pragmatism to institutional economics is its skepticism toward any quest for certainty. This skepticism questions the widespread belief that social processes move toward a pre-established and determinate end – a fixed telos; instead of this teleological bias pragmatists stress indeterminacy and uncertainty as basis characteristics of all processes, including and particularly social processes.” (Kapp, 1968, p. 5).

[16] 分为五级Tier 1~5;1980年代之排名，Tier 1: top 6:Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Yale; “Tier 1 programs employed 64 percent of their own Ph.D.’s. Tier 2 programs employed 28 percent of their own Ph.D.’s, with 64percent coming from tier 1 programs. Tier 3 programs employed 15 percent of their own Ph.D.’s, with 41percent coming from tier 1 and 2 programs. Tier 4programs hired 11 percent of their own Ph.D.’s, with another 80 percent divided equally among tiers 1-3. Tier 5 programs jired 82 percent of their Ph.D.’s from higher tier programs.” (Hansen, 1991, p. 1065).

[17] DeMartino (2000, p.19): “The loss of the many traditions of dissent within economics is apt to lead to a single-mined pursuit of damaging policies, and to an intolerable intellectual hubris among theorists and policymakers.”

[18] 诺贝尔经济学奖得主同时本身亦是数理经济学家（mathematical economists）Leontief就指出：”That state (the abstraction crisis) is likely to be maintained as long as tenured members of leading economics departments continue to exercise tight control over the training, promotion, and research activities of their younger faculty members and, by means of peer review, of the senior members as well.” (Wassily Leontief, Letters: Academic Economics, in: Science, 1982, vol. 217, p. 107), 引自：Redman (1993), p.158.

[19] Frey and Eichenberge (1997, pp.18-19): “The output produced is self-defined by the international economics community and is measured in terms of scientific publications and citations in professional journals. Articles in scientific reviews do not mainly serve to propagate knowledge but act as a selection device for academic economists. Ray-economics is thus inward oriented. The topics and questions dealt with are theory-driven (..), and the task is to (marginally) improve on existing formal models which in turn are based on previous formal models. What matters is technical rigour and formal elegance. The presentation of the results is highly regulated (..). Content is only relevant as far as it gives a reason to apply a certain technique of analysis. The same holds for institutional knowledge. Content and institutions are disregarded because they are irrelevant for the self-defined quality standards. The quality of a professional contribution can only be evaluated with respect to internationally valid aspects. Formal rigour and elegance perfectly meet this requirement: the quality of the proof of a theorem can be judged by other scholars irrespective of whether they live in Bonn, Madison or Hongkong. In contrast, academic contributions based on an extensive knowledge of local conditions and institutions cannot be judged by an external scholar. ….The impersonal scientific ‘objectivity’, a major standard in this type of economics, is then at risk because the few evaluators almost certainly know each other well, resulting in judgments biased by non-scientific considerations.” 同时参考：Colander (1991, p.4)，Mayer(1993, ch. 1,2)。

[20] Joseph J. Spengler, Exogenous and Endogenous Influences in the Formation of Post-1870 Economic thought: A Sociology of the Knowledge Approach, in: Robert V. Eagley (ed.), Events, Ideology and Economic Theory, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1968, pp. 159~187. 引自：Redman (1993), p. 163.

[21] 成员包括：Anne O. Krueger (Duke University, Chair), Kenneth J. Arrow (Stanford University), Olivier Jean Blanchard (M.I.T.), Alan S. Blinder (Princeton University), Claudia Goldin (Harvard University), Edward E. Leamer (UCLA), Robert Lucas (University of Chicago), John Panzar (Northwestern University), Rudolph G. Penner (Urban Institute), T. Paul Schultz (Yale University), Joseph E. Stiglitz (Stanford), Lawrence H. Summers (Harvard University).

委员会成立的缘由，系响应一般对美国各大学经济学门之研究与训练的批评: “At a symposium on the state of economics held late in 1986, sponsored by the National Science foundation, many participants put forth the view that economics as taught in graduate school had become too divorced from real world questions. This viewpoint seemed to be shared by a sufficiently large number of people inside and outside of profession that it merited careful scrutiny.” (Krueger, et al, 1991, p. 1035).

[22] 91个大学之经济学系。

[23] 不过，由于这个标榜其它学门所没有的”self-critical”, “self-evaluation”，仍是囿于新古典经济主义典范，故其仅止于教学技术层次问题，未及于其所传授之「知识」本质。其得到的结论，亦仅触及皮毛；”In brief, we believe that graduate education can be improved if relatively more emphasis is given to providing students with applications of the tools of economics to economic problems. To do this does not require a complete overhaul of graduate education in economics.” (Krueger, et al, 1991, pp. 1052)。七项建议，亦是属技术层次(Krueger, et al, 1991, pp. 1052~53)。这样的结论，如果对照照「是否应改变教学之结构与内容」的问卷调查的结果，更凸显其矛盾性；参考：Hansen(1991), pp. 1065~1066.

[24] 研究生之意见，除了Critical judgment「应」重于Creativity外，余相同。

[25] D. N. Winch, What Price the History of Economic thought? in: Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 1962, vol. 9, pp. 193~204. 引自：Redman (1993), p.164.