From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 14:52:42 EST
At 1:10 PM -0500 11/24/04, Paul Zarembka wrote: > > >>> In fact, I agree with very much of what is written here - except for >> some adjective which add nothing to content: insidious, for example. >> But the substance is right. <<< >> >> Riccardo, >> >> What are you saying? You seem to be agreeing with him that >> her critique of marginal productivity theory "certainly does not compensate >> for her [...] attempt to vanquish [...] Marx by making him appear as a >> proto Keynesian." This is an unbelievably narrow assessment of >> the contribution of Robinson to economic theory -- especially the >> _critique_ of economic theory. Just think of all of the other >> contributions >> that she made to theory! That she should have taken a critical standpoint >> towards Marx -- something that we should _all_ do, Marxists >> _especially_ -- is not cause for asserting that on balance she made >> a negative contribution to thought. >> >> In solidarity, Jerry > >I agree with you, Jerry. My own exit from neoclassical economics was >greatly contributed to by the Cambridge (UK) critique of neoclassical >capital theory and she was of course a major part of that. Furthermore, >since I knew her personally a bit and got her to the ILO in the mid-70s -- >which eventually resulted in her development book which the ILO refused to >publish because it was too radical, By this do you mean she was too gung ho about the shining developmental model of North Korea? Rakesh > I know directly that she had a >wide-ranging impact on stimulating critical economics among many >economists and non-economists. > >Joan Robinson is DEFINITELY the kind of economist with whom we need to >build alliances or we will be worth nothing except our own narcissism. > >Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 25 2004 - 00:00:01 EST