Re: [OPE-L] is this an example of the "new pluralism" in economics?

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 13:31:09 EST

• Next message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity"
• Previous message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "[OPE-L] is this an example of the "new pluralism" in economics?"
• In reply to: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "[OPE-L] is this an example of the "new pluralism" in economics?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

At 12:36 PM -0500 3/10/05, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:
>I attended a session on the "new pluralism" at the EEA conference
>at which Antonio spoke (but Stephen C and Susan Feiner were
>unable to attend).
>
>Then, I received the following in the mail today.
>
>Clearly, Geoff Hodgson is a heterodox economist who is committed to
>pluralism.


It's the pluralism in Hodgson's own thought that confuses me.
What I don't understand is how he combines his prior commitment to
Sraffian economics (developed with brilliant clarity, it should be
said) with his later interest in evolutionary economics. If by
evolutionary economics one means in part development--that is
evolution involves more than a change from one state to the next in
comparative static fashion; evolutionary development meaning in other
words that a later state can actually be explained by a previous
one--then how possibly can the inherently static neo Ricardian
formalism be integrated with a developmental evolutionary perspective?


Rakesh

• Next message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] standard commodity"
• Previous message: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "[OPE-L] is this an example of the "new pluralism" in economics?"
• In reply to: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "[OPE-L] is this an example of the "new pluralism" in economics?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 11 2005 - 00:00:01 EST