From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 18:09:36 EST
Dear Colleagues Thanks for copying me into the conversation. To clarify, about 1981 I came to the conclusion that Sraffian analysis was essentially static, and thereby inadequate. Ten years late I published a book with the title "After Marx and Sraffa". In an essay I published in 1997 I argued for pluralism in the academy, not in a single person's head. Best wishes Geoff Hodgson At 18:31 10/03/2005, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: >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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 12 2005 - 00:00:01 EST