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

From: Andrew Brown (A.Brown@LUBS.LEEDS.AC.UK)
Date: Fri Mar 11 2005 - 05:29:05 EST 

So perhaps Hodgson now agrees with me regarding Sraffa's sytem ('esentially static' sums up nicely my point re. technical change) and will turn back to the LTV once he realises he has based his entire rejection of it on an 'indequate' 'essentially static' framework !:)
 
I should clarify that I think the Sraffian system is useful once one recognises its limitations (and holds fast to the LTV)
 
Andy

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: OPE-L on behalf of Rakesh Bhandari 
	Sent: Thu 10/03/2005 23:09 
	To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [OPE-L] Is this an example of the "new pluralism" in economics?
	
	

	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