I've always felt that Robin Hahnel took the best of all that in his
fine 'Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics'.
michael
At 21:59 01/06/2007, you wrote:
He was writing that stuff in the late sixties as well. I have a
wonderful piece of his in mimeo that he passed around in a study
group in Cambridge, must have been '67 ot '68.
Gene Coyle
On Jun 1, 2007, at 4:44 PM, Walt Byars wrote:
An odd criticism. In the mid 1970's Gintis wrote some well known
papers on
the implications of "endogenous preferences" i.e. preferences which
are
not given but caused by the economic system. He always mentions how
his
more recent work is an extension of this. Bowles's Microeconomics
has lots
of game theoretical models which have to do with preference
formation. I
thought those models were a little awkward but potentially useful.
The institutionalist approach (of which Marxian political economy
is a
type) does transcend that methodological individualism. It says that
not only do people make the world (including its institutions), but
those institutions substantially make the people, i.e., their tastes,
social values, and expectations. NC economics notes the first and
ignores the second. As far as I know, game theory is the same way.
I'm
sure somebody will correct me if game theory has actually introduced
endogenous tastes into their models.
--
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database:
269.8.5/826 - Release Date: 31/05/2007 16:51
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development'
Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
Caracas, Venezuela
fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
