>Posted on 3 Mar 1994 at 02:21:43 by Uriacc Mailer (002033)
>
>space (i.e., where we actual stand)
>
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: 02 Mar 1994 22:30:28 -0800 (PST)
>
>I am not about to jump into Gil and Ajit's debates on GE and Sraffa. Not
>my cup of tea. But something Jim Devine said, along with the fact that I
>am teaching Urban this quarter, brought up on of my ongoing peeves.
>
>On march 2, Jim Devine said:
>> (Of course, time is another problem for
>>Walrasians: they can't deal with historical (i.e., real-world)
>>time, but only logical time.)
>
>At least as important as real time is real space, i.e., the real lacation
>of real economic activity. Neoclassical theory implicitly assumes that all
>activity, production, distribution, the auctioneer, exist at a single point in
>space. I believe that *every* econ grad. student should be required to
>take a course in Urban, that includes location theory. The addition of real
>space to the standard neoclassical model guarantees that perfect competition
>is *logically* impossible. The best the neoclassicals can hope for is
>imperfect competition. Bottom line, no firms are efficient in the standard
>sense, and no firm produces the optimal amount of output. One had better
>like the second best, because the "best" is impossible.
>
>Doug Orr
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Two books I'd recommend on this issue, at somewhat different extremes
of the theoretical spectrum, are:
Sheppard & Barnes, The Capitalist Space Economy. -- A post-Sraffa
affair, with reswitching in space, etc.
Sayer, Andres, Method in Social Science, A Realist Approach -- Mostly
philosophy of science, but it has good discussion of the conditions
under which social science can safely ignore space.
Marsh Feldman
Community Planning Phone: 401/792-2248
204 Rodman Hall FAX: 401/792-4395
University of Rhode Island Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kingston, RI 02881-0815
