Who is actually doing micro from a radical perspective?
What does that even mean?
Ron Baiman is into it. Steven Marglin used to,
haven't been keeping up w/his work since I was
assigned his cost-benefit paper in grad school.
But I see them in the same mold as Robin.
If you're saying Hahnel is too fixed on markets
and quasi-markets clearing, I don't think that's
a handicap in this context. If you don't start
with markets and quasi-markets, what do you have?
Organizations? Somebody dig up Kenneth Boulding.
Maybe Brad needs Stiglitz to
debate Stiglitz. Or maybe he should set up
a sociologist versus economist shoot-out. I'm
confident the former would love the opportunity.
One of them told me once, "you economists have
totally screwed up policy debate. You
individualize everything."
mbs
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Dorman
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2000 4:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:15981] Re: RE: Journal of Economic Perspectives
I agree with Max about Barkley. (We could insert Robert Blecker when
trade rolls around.) On the micro side, as much as I appreciate the work
Robin has done on welfare economics, I'd have to say he's too walrasian
to be representative. He's even more walrasian than a lot of
mainstreamers, and a lot more than someone like Stiglitz. (Not more
walrasian than Roemer, though...)
Micro is a problem, actually. Since this is where my main interest lies,
I would really appreciate any leads on innovative, radical micro thinking
-- especially work that can be used in applied and policy analysis.
Peter
Max Sawicky wrote:
> I nominate Rosser. He seems more aware than most
> of what a variety of off-center people are doing,
> particularly on the macro side. Just as long as
> he doesn't go into trade theory, where he transmutes
> into B DeLong. On the micro side, I'd say Robin
> Hahnel.
>
> A problem others note is the meaning of 'radical.'
> There should be some place for the "post-K's."
> Obvious possibilities there are Davidson and/or
> Galbraith.
>
> For sympathetic mainstream listeners, I'd go w/
> Blinder & Stiglitz. A Hahnel/Stiglitz exchange
> would be pretty neat. Failing Stiglitz, maybe
> Akerlof?
>
> mbs
>
> A while ago the _JEP_ had a short symposium on "Austrian" economics:
> Harvey Rosen wrote a sympathetic critique of the Austrian school, and
> Leland Yeager responded. This seemed to work: communication was
> accomplished. The selection of Harvey as someone definitely in the
> establishment but not unsympathetic to the Austrian point of view
> proved a good way to get Austrian concerns and views in front of the
> _JEP's_ readership. The selection of Leland to comment prevented the
> symposium from collapsing into being just Harvey Rosen's view of
> Austrian economics.
>
> Should the powers-that-be at the _JEP_ decide that it is time to do
> the same thing for "Radical" economics, who should play the role of
> Harvey Rosen? Who should play the role of Leland Yeager?
>
> Brad DeLong
