From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Fri May 26 2006 - 11:18:09 EDT
> Would you accept Sam as an authority on these questions? Hi Mike L, No, but then even if I had, it would not sway me since I am not attracted to appeals by authority. I think that the "Young Bowles" was more interesting than the "Late Bowles." I'm not convinced that "Post-Walrasian political economy" has anything progressive from which Marxians could learn. But, I am open to learning more .... > And would you proudly declare > that you have no use for "marxist" books (while staying on this list > and contributing regularly to our exhausted discourse)? No, but what Jurriaan wrote didn't offend me. He will probably disagree with the following assessment but I believe he is struggling in his own way with what many Marxists are: namely, how to free and liberate socialist economic discourse and research from the dead weight of tradition, dogmatism, and hermeneutics? Even if I answer that question differently than him, I recognize that we are asking some of the same questions ... and besides he usually has interesting stuff to say (can't say that I care for those song lyrics at the end of posts, but that's a minor stylistic quibble). ---------------------------------------------------- Returning to the main issue in the thread: Jurriaan referred to "supply side" and "demand side" issues. I see the S and D side issues somewhat differently. Demand-Side: 1. The single biggest factor causing the lack of demand for books on Marxian and heterodox economists is, simply, the quantity of people who are interested in scholarly books in this subject area. a. Overall, I would say that the single largest factor for this is objective and can be traced back to the diminishing number of people interested in studying political economy after the 1970s. I say it is objective since the population of students of p.e. who stayed interested in this field was fueled by the youth radicalization of the 1960's and 1970's. When the radicalization ended then people studying radical political economy (both formally in graduate school and informally in study groups, etc.) descended precipitously. All one has to do is look at the age distribution of radical economists to see this. b. With the end of that radicalization and the increasing isolation and hostility experienced by scholars in academic departments -- along with a re-questioning of presumptions after the fall of the USSR, etc. -- many of the radicals who were interested in political economy have gone mainstream or are attracted to new forms of heterodoxy such as institutional economics. 2. The subjects of some scholarly books, quite frankly, only appeal to very small quantities of scholars. E.g. who wants to buy another expensive volume on the "transformation problem"? Given 3) below, if you expect a book to sell in greater quantity than you have to write on topics of the most interest to scholars in the field. This implies writing on new, innovative, and socially and politically important subjects and interpretations. 3. To have a demand for books, one must not only have willingness, one must also have ability. This means, of course, that one must have the money necessary to purchase the books. Fred Lee wrote that he was directing his comment "to those who have the income to buy the books". OK, but how many radical economists can afford to buy the new scholarly books (especially hardcovers)? a) How many Marxian scholars, for instance, in Argentina, Tanzania, or the Philippines can afford to buy those books -- unless they are heavily subsidized? Not many. b) In the US and some other nations, colleges are increasingly relying on contingent, part-time faculty (like myself) who are (to put it bluntly) impoverished. How many of the scholars in that kind of work situation can afford to buy many of these books? Not many. c) Even full-time and tenured faculty suffer from budget constraints. Even they have opportunity costs. Even they have other financial responsibilities. Life happens in capitalist society and it costs. Scholarly books cost enough that these comrades also usually have to make choices about which and how many books to purchase. (There is also a choice to be made about the allocation of time. Mike L's most recent comments are pertinent in this regard. Given our other -- political, social, family, work, writing, etc. -- responsibilities, how many of us are in a situation where we have the time required to seriously study all of the new volumes of interest?) Supply Side: Publishers, whether they are mainstream or radical, experience economies of scale and this affects their pricing decisions. Given the limited demand for scholarly books on Marxian political economy, they simply _have_ to charge huge prices -- unless they are subsidized by a third-party. I don't think these (mostly small) publishers are trying to gouge buyers -- they're just trying to recover their costs and receive a profit that will allow them to continue their businesses. (This is different in some ways from the market for college texts.) It is, of course, possible for alterative radical publishers to sell books at lower prices (Monthly Review Press and Autonomedia come to mind, but there are others). Even so, they have to consider -- unless they are heavily subsidized -- the demand for volumes before making a decision about price and quantity. It's no accident that these publishers tend to print more popular volumes of immediate political interest than volumes of interest basically only to scholars. --------- I'm not sure what are the best answers to these problems. Surely, we should try to get libraries to purchase scholarly books. Fred Lee's suggestion to collectively buy and share volumes is a possibility, but one which would require the emergence of more widespread forms of scholarly collaboration and research than is currently the state amongst most radical economists. What would be VERY helpful would be the creation of a FUND specifically earmarked for research by scholars internationally on Marxian political economy which could cover books costs, traveling expenses, research grants, etc. I don't see Bill Gates setting up such a fund. However, if there is an archives reader who has deep pockets and would like to create such a fund please contact me at glevy@pratt.edu and I will be very happy to assist such a worthwhile project. (Hey, it never hurts to ask.) An additional alterative and the one which I believe will eventually happen (and, in fact, is already happening to a great extent) is for publishing to shift away from the traditional to the electronic format. This obviously radically lowers production costs and creates the possibility of publishing 'free', or relatively very inexpensive, books. This requires a transition also (already well underway) in the way in which scholars read books and do research. Furthermore, it requires some changes in expectations (of income and, possibly, prestige) by authors. There's no question, though, that it is a change which is well underway: the writing is already on the cyber-wall (the computer screen). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT