I bought an interesting book by Branko Horvat (along with another book, Michael P's _Transcending the Economy_) on sale a little while ago at "The Strand" bookstore. Branko Horvat's book, _The Theory of International Trade: An Alternative Approach_ (NY, St. Martin's Press, 1999) gives a rare "in print" example of (should I say, "alleged"?) suppression: "Since I do not find neoclassical theory of great use, not much of it will be found in this book. But I made every effort not to neglect any good scholarly work as the list of references demonstrates. On the other hand, Neo-Ricardian theory naturally fits into my theoretical framework much better and I do not hesitate to use the research results of Neo-Ricardians. At the time of writing, I was not aware how dangerous that was. Later I observed that Neo-Ricardians are mostly ignored and rarely if ever quoted in the mainstream literature. The reason for this neglect was explained to me in a letter by Christopher Bliss after he had negatively reviewed my book on value and capital -- without having given himself the trouble of reading it! Professor Bliss advises me of the fact that 'in this field there is a large divide between the broadly "Neo-Ricardian" writers and those of a more "Neoclassical" inclination,' classifies me among unpleasant Neo-Ricardians (which I am not) and states that he does not belong to the 'same school (sic!),' adds that 'reviews ought to be entertaining' and observes that 'ultimately such issues are matters of opinion,' leaving no doubt that his opinion is negative. A nice set of 'scientific' criteria. Professor Bliss is one of the editors of *Economic Journal* and a former editor of *Oxford Economic Papers*." (pp. x-xi). I think it took some courage on Horvat's part to make the above public. I think it is far more common for victims of theoretical suppression to go "silently into the night". In any event, his story is a good case study of how all heterodox theoretical perspectives are suppressed by the oppression of the marginalists. I wonder: what were the reviews like for *this* book? The next paragraph some on this list might find interesting as well: "Neo-Ricardians, however, do themselves a dis-service in constantly attacking the labour theory of value trying to show how Sraffa demolished it. It seems to me that they believe that only one labour theory imaginable is that of Ricardo and Marx. In Chapter 17, I showed what motivated Marx to use the value theory that was at hand, namely that of Ricardo. If Neo-Ricardians drop the assumption of one possible labour theory, they will realize that a poor labour theory may be replaced by a better one and that Sraffa could have written a simpler book free of artificial constructs. Perhaps, some day Sraffians may attempt to accomplish that. But that will not endear them to the dominant academic coterie" (Ibid). The above is very suggestive and assertive and I have not read Ch. 17 on "Unequal Exchange" so I can not comment further at this time. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT