Michael Lebowitz wrote:
I've always felt that Robin Hahnel took the best of all that in his fine 'Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics'.
I agree that Hahnel's book is a valuable contribution. But I don't think it was meant as the final word. Instead, it's the sketch of a research program to go beyond traditional welfare analysis. At least, that's the way I understand it. In the little I've read from them, Gintis and Bowles grapple with the same issues -- the inadequacy of traditional welfare analysis. In a sense, I translate Gintis as saying (something I concur with) that there is already much work in economic theory that amounts to some sort of realization (contradictory and all) of the research program outlined by Hahnel. After the general equilibrium main theorems were contemplated for a little while (say, a decade), economic theory had nowhere else to go but to critique them. Without necessarily looking at the big picture implication, a lot of work was and it's still being done in precisely this direction. The way I think of this, the research program that Hahnel sketched was just the becoming conscious of this need in the inherent logic of economic theory. Hahnel complained that the obvious crisis in welfare theory was not being noticed, but -- in fact -- people had already taken or were taking some of the next steps. This is a Sisyphean task. The Critical Synthesis is still ahead of us. The Synthesis will inform life and life will sort out what's relevant from what isn't. It's always best that the Synthesis be conscious -- to the extent it can be conscious in these mystifying times.
