>Just thought I'd clarify: > >I meant the issue has been dressed up as two 'opposites' neither of which we >need necessarily embrace - but if we don't embrace 'em, our discourse isn't >in the frame - the frame constituted for economic debate today is one of >Hayekian freedom plus price as optimal communication versus some >quasi-Stalinist bureaucratic system by which political and economic power is >reputedly even more concentrated and allocation decisions are reputedly >necessarily sub-optimal. There's gotta be room opened up beyond this pair, >no? > >Is there any new literature on this question? > >Cheers, >Rob. > Hi all, There is some literature on this other than Albert & Hahnel and Nove et al. It is not that fleshed out model but an attempt to direct the debate towards a third way between Hayek and Central Planning (especially last three articles): Devine, Pat 1988. Democracy and Economic Planning, Cambridge: Polity Press. Devine, Pat (1992). "Market Socialism or Participatory Planning?", Review of Radical Political Economy, 24:XX. Adaman, Fikret and Pat Devine (1994). "Socialist Renewal: Lessons from the 'Calculation' Debate", Studies in Political Economy, 43:63-77. Adaman, Fikret and Pat Devine (1996). "The Economic Calculation Debate: Lessons for Socialists", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 20:523-537. Adaman, Fikret and Pat Devine (1997). "On the Economic Theory of Socialism", New Left Review, 221:54-80. Also there is an interesting Marxian-Austrian debate that had occured in the pages of Rethinking Marxism: Burczak, Theodore (1996/97) "Socialism after Hayek." Rethinking Marxism 9 (3):1-18. Cullenberg, Stephen, David l. Prychitko, Peter Boettke and Theodore Burczak (1998) "Socialism, Capitalism, and the Labor Theory of Property: A Marxian-Austrian Dialogue" Rethinking Marxism 10 (2):65-105. good night, y. > Yahya Mete Madra < > PhD Candidate < > Economics Department > University of Massachusetts Amherst <
