________________________________________
Alejandro
I disagree with Jerry and Paul.
The case of East Germany is exceptional because it was extremely emotional, given the particular circumstances of common culture, language and territory artificially split.
------------------------------
What about the Berufsverbot in West Germany from the 70s? The mass dismissal of marxist from east german universities from the 90s was just the application of existing West German policy that had long been in place.
------------------
Concerning USSR, we have to remember the difficulties that Evsei Liberman and Leonid Kantorovich faced to develop their theories, facing an intricate net of patronage even to publish. This is particularly striking in the case of Kantorovich given the technical nature of his work. In fact, these and other few soviet scholars enjoyed recognition after the doctrinaire change of the bureaucracy, due to the economic disaster of USSR before the Second World War. Even under these circumstances, it’s hard to say that there was room for free market supporters in USSR. Central planning was an uncontested dogma.
-----------------------
This does not correspond with what Allin told me when he was a visiting scholar in Moscow in the 80s. He said it was almost impossible to find economists who were not neo-classicals, and only after several months did he find some at Moscow state university who were pro-planning.
------------------
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Jun 13 13:42:56 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 30 2009 - 00:00:03 EDT