Well, I haven't been invited, having already overdone
it. But when there is a "bash Krugman" party going on, I
have trouble staying away. The following is the last two
paragraphs from a review I wrote of Krugman's book,
_Development, Geography, and Economic Theory_. The review
is forthcoming in _Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization_ (of which, incidentally, I am the Book Review
Editor). After showing all sorts of literature PK ignored
that did what he claims to have done (I have listed that
literature on pen-l before), I declare:
"Why do we see this phenomenon where a well-known
economist walks into a field, ignoring existing
contributions, and is able to attract widespread attention
to his view of the field? Much of this is due to the
increasing volume of publications and our associated
specialization. It is very hard for outsiders to know what
is there, so if a more well-known economist with a gift for
articulation and popularization pronounces on the state of
the field, he can convince other outsiders of the
correctness of his view and receives the credit and
citations for that view. This process thus becomes
self-reinforcing, a kind of intellectual self-fulfilling
prophecy with cumulative causation. It becomes exaggerated
when combined with the sort of "mainstream triumphalism" in
which Professor Krugman indulges, even while he tweaks his
fellow mainstreamers for not being as able as him to pick
up on all these wonderful but allegedly pathetically
unrigorous ideas floating around in the fringes. In the
end, even the insiders are forced to go along as well.
I believe that Professor Krugman is himself aware of
teh contradictions inherent in his position on this matter.
Thus in an article about rejections of classic papers by
leading authors (Gans and Shepherd, JEP, 1994, 8, p. 178),
Professor Krugman is quoted as saying, 'I am having a
terrible time with my current work on economic geography:
referees tell me that it's obvious, it's wrong, and anyway
they said it years ago.' Clearly Gans and Shepherd
sympathize with him and view these reported remarks by
these referees as silly. However, at least the parts about
his work in this area being obvious and having been said
years ago are far from silly. If he is indeed the emperor
of the new economic geography, then he is an emperor who
has no clothes."
Barkley Rosser
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 20:58:48 -0800 (PST) Michael Perelman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Slate is a slick microsoft publication
>
> http://www.slate.com/TOC/current/contents.asp
>
> Krugman sets himself up as a liberal field marshall, who establishes the
> limits on permissible syles of dissent. He does a great job of trashing
> the right. He trashes the left with equal gusto.
>
> What is wrong with much of his criticism is that he defines everything
> as off limits that does not use an acceptable methodology.
>
> Jim Devine should pick up on this one. Barkely had done quite a bit of
> trashing Krugman on pen-l some time ago.
>
> Rhon Baiman wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 27 Oct 1996, Michael Perelman wrote:
> >
> > > Did anyone see Krugman's piece in the recent Slate? According to
> > > Krugman,
> > > people like Jaimie Galbraith and Rob't Kuttner are not fit to comment on
> > > economic matters because they either do not understand (in Kuttner's
> > > case)
> > > or they do not choose to use (in Galbraith's case) to use the
> > > mathematical
> > > methodology that Krugman espouses.
> > >
> >
> > Michael,
> >
> > Excuse my ignorance but what is the "Slate" ? I just read an
> > excellent Krugman piece in the recent Mother Jones on Inequality and was
> > mightily impressed (heartened) that he was on our side at least on this
> > issue - so I'm quite curious about your comment.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ron Baiman
>
> --
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 916-898-5321
> E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Rosser Jr, John Barkley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
