CALL FOR PAPERS
Year 2001 Mini-Conference on value theory and the world economy
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Manhattan, February 23-25th 2001
We invite you to the eighth mini-conference of the International Working Group on Value Theory (IWGVT), to be held as part of the Eastern Economic Association (EEA) conference. Papers relating to the conference aims which address the IWGVT’s interests are welcome. A summary of these, and full instructions on paper submissions including our scholarship guidelines, is attached.
The 2001 conference will be substantially different in form
•	The conference specifically invites contributions on the state of the world economy.
•	The conference actively encourages contributions, dealing with questions of political economy, from disciplines formally outside economics such as history, philosophy, geography or sociology
To provide for in-depth analysis, contributors should address the conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues which underpin their work.
Abstracts of individual papers are welcome from August 1st onwards. The final deadline for abstracts is December 1st. The final deadline for completed papers is February 1st and final acceptance is conditional on papers being provided by this deadline. 
To foster pluralistic and critical dialogue, papers should conform to IWGVT scholarship guidelines.
To contact us
For further information e-mail us at a.freeman@greenwich.ac.uk , or consult our website at www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt, which also contains past papers.
What is the IWGVT?
The IWGVT promotes critical and pluralistic debate on the fundamental ideas of political economy, seeking particularly—but not exclusively—to deepen the discussion of value concepts appropriate to dynamic analysis, and to end the unacceptable exclusion of the value theory of Karl Marx from existing debates.
The principal justification which economics offers for excluding its foremost critic is the proposition that, whatever the merits of his contribution on individual issues, his concept of value is invalid because it leads to internal inconsistencies. A growing body of independent research shows that this argument is no longer sustainable. We conclude that discussion in political economy should be conducted without presupposing any established standard, tradition or source of authority regarding either value or Marx.
The IWGVT defends no particular theory beyond arguing that the concept of value itself is indispensable. It does believe it is possible to assess the merits of contesting theories in debate. It seeks to create an atmosphere for this debate—which does not at present exist—such that all economic theories, and all readings of their authors, may be assessed on an equal footing, referring in their support neither to the evidence of authority nor the conviction of doctrine but to reasoned and logical discussion based on textual evidence for readings and factual evidence for theories.
Seven successive mini-conferences have provided a widespread, gratifying and international response to our initial appeal. The number of panels and panelists has grown steadily, as has participation from those outside the United States. 
The IWGVT is becoming recognized as a forum for all those interested in the critical discussion of political economy, irrespective of theoretical orientation. 

Instructions and deadlines
Proposals for papers or sessions are welcome at any time and we can give a provisional indication of acceptance if you need this to apply for finance. Final acceptance is conditional on compliance with the requirements below for submission of completed papers. The conference programme has to be ready in early December to comply with EEA requirements and therefore, there can be no slippage on the deadline for submission of abstracts. The deadline for submission of completed papers is also strict. We undertake to pre-circulate completed papers electronically and to provide printed papers at the conference. Our experience is that once ‘slippage’ is accepted, it becomes impossible to comply with these primary undertaking. 
Deadline for abstracts: December 1, 2001
Deadline for papers: February 1st, 2000
Papers must be complete when submitted but may consists of drafts or work in progress. Authors are welcome to submit papers in their mother tongue. Completed papers need not be long, and we strongly encourage papers which revisit contributions made elsewhere.
By submitting a paper, you agree to act as a discussant; discussants will be assigned in early February.
The following must accompany the paper: 
•	an abstract of 100 to 300 words;
•	paper title, name(s) and affiliation(s) as you want them to appear in the EEA conference program;
•	contact information—address, phone, fax, and e-mail;
•	mandatory submission fee (more information below);
•	any times you cannot present or serve as discussant.
Where and how to send papers
Papers should be sent electronically to a.freeman@greenwich.ac.uk. On receipt they will be posted on the IWGVT website at www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt
It is not our practice to reject submissions relevant to the conference theme. However, papers should conform to the IWGVT Scholarship Guidelines, included below. These guidelines are not intended as a selection procedure but as a guarantee of pluralism and critical engagement. We ask that you study them carefully and use them as a guide when writing your paper.
Submission fees
The IWGVT is run on a voluntary basis and its costs greatly exceed its income. Please note that, due to our limited financial resources, we require a submission fee of $20 or £15, which should be sent by post separately from your paper to:
	Alan Freeman
	University of Greenwich 
School of Social Sciences
	Avery Hill
	London SE9 2HB. 
Larger sums will not, of course, be turned down.
This submission fee is separate from the registration fee. The registration fee is payable to the EEA, not to us. The EEA will bill you after it receives the IWGVT’s tentative program. Registration fees for the 2000 conference were $45 for EEA members, $95 for non-members, and we expect them to be about the same for the 2000 conference. 
Wordprocessor formats
Papers should be formatted using Word, Word Perfect or RTF(rich text format). We cannot accept papers in either PostScript or Adobe PDF format. 
Papers should preferably be formatted for US letter page size with margins of 1 inch (2.54 cm) all round, and should be single-spaced, not double-spaced.
Graphics must be resizeable, should not be mixed with text, and should not be inserted as floating objects. 
We cannot guarantee to pre-circulate papers that do not conform to these requirements, which allow us to format your paper for printing.
Conference Information and discussion
We now run two electronic lists:
A discussion list which extends and supplement the conference discussion, examines topics of special interest, and allows IWGVT members that cannot attend the conference to exchange ideas and views. If you join this list you will get regular messages from other list members and can submit your own contributions.
A distribution list which disseminates information concerning the IWGVT, sister organisations, and conference activities. The volume of material is much lower than the discussion list, and if you want to restrict the number of messages you receive, you can confine your membership to it.
If you join the discussion list, you will automatically receive information from the distribution list. You do not need to join both.
To join the distribution list only, send a message containing the words 
join econ-value Your Name 
to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk (the words "Your Name" should be replaced by your actual name). 
To jon both the distribution list and the discussion list, send a message containing the words
join econ-value-discussion Your Name
to mailbase@mailbase.ac.uk (the words "Your Name" should be replaced by your actual name). 
Materials from past EEA mini-conferences may be viewed on www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt . As the preparation of the conference advances we keep this periodically updated. 
On the discussion list you should adhere to IWGVT guidelines and respect general rules of netiquette. Flaming, spam, and junk mail are strictly unacceptable. The organisers will exclude from the list participants who violate any of these general regulations if it is necessary to protect other list members.
IWGVT Scholarship Guidelines
Preamble
We are convinced that the de facto function of mainstream selection procedures is to exclude. Mainstream selection criteria are subjective and therefore discriminate against theories and arguments which the reviewers and editors hold in disfavor. Conversely, the following guidelines put forth some objective criteria to which, as we have learned and as we teach, good scholarship should conform. 
It is common in academic discourse for proponents of one perspective to exclude, ignore, and deny legitimacy to opposing perspectives. Against this, the aim of the guidelines is to achieve a style of debate in which different perspectives engage with one another. We seek to foster a dialogue which is pluralist, because no interpretation of a theory, and no presentation of the facts, will be ruled out a priori, but also critical, because proponents of various perspectives will need to confront the alternatives. 
Inform Readers of the Alternatives 
An argument is not well-grounded unless the extant alternatives have been addressed. This means that all points of view are legitimate until proved otherwise. Engage and cite the views of others involved in debating the issues you are addressing, and treat them as equals acting in good faith. If you want other people to attend to what you are saying, then attend to what they are saying. 
Don't Deny Legitimacy to Alternative Views 
The aim of debate is clarity, not demolition. Avoid turns of phrase such as 'absurd', 'ridiculous', or 'impossible' to deny the legitimacy of opposing views, or phrases like 'as is widely known' or 'of course' to prove your own views are undeniable. 
Identify the conceptual basis of "facts" 
Economic data are not undisputed facts of nature but the result of a theoretical interpretation which should be explicit. 'The real output of the UK economy in 1994 was &pound;570,722m' is a false claim. 'Output as measured by the UK NIPAs, deflated using the HMSO GDP deflator, was &pound;570,722m' specifies the conceptual framework that produced the claim, and lets the reader trace the assertion back to its source. 
Distinguish Original Texts from Subsequent Interpretations 
You must distinguish clearly between an original text and subsequent interpretation. John Maynard Keynes did not say that equilibrium in the goods and money markets is given by the intersection of the IS and LM curves. This is Hicks' interpretation of Keynes. Karl Marx did not say that value is a vertically-integrated labour coefficient: this is the interpretation of Marx proposed by Linear Production Theory. 
Argue from Evidence 
Both statements about the world and interpretations of texts must be supported by empirical evidence, from the world or from the text, respectively. Appeals either to authority or to popular wisdom do not constitute evidence. Avoid Ad Hominem reasoning: don’t try to substantiate or refute an argument by reference to any characteristic of the person presenting it. 
Distinguish Between Internal Inconsistency, Interpretive Difficulties, and Disagreement 
If you justify your approach by asserting that opposing views are inconsistent, you are declaring they cannot possibly be right and you hence exclude them from discussion. If you have only demonstrated the inconsistency of your own reading of these views, then your proof is false because you have not exhausted the alternatives; but you have closed down the dialogue. If you want to say a view is inconsistent, provide evidence that it cannot be interpreted otherwise. Unless you can do this, instead say that you have difficulty making sense of the argument, or that you disagree with it, as the case may be. 
Characterize Schools of Thought in the Preferred Manner 
Do not use a characterisation for the purpose of dismissal. In debate, refer to other schools of thought by the name they prefer (for example, 'surplus approach' in preference to 'neoricardian') unless you are including them in a wider grouping with no recognised name. In the latter case, try to provide an accurate, descriptive term.