Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread RICHARD P.F. HOLT

I think the big issue is not getting rid of the word "radical" but defining
what it means these days. When I talk to my orthodox colleagues it isn't
the radical that bothers them but whether we are doing anything relevant
or simply just trying to hold on to the old faith. I think its important
that RRPE starts developing some ties with other heterodox journals and 
to give a clear definition of its mission. I would also like to see URPE
form its own listserv so it can carry out some serious continuous dialogue
with its members.
-Ric Holt
Elon College
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: Re[2]: Population

1994-08-31 Thread Doug Henwood



On Tue, 30 Aug 1994, Ajit Sinha wrote:

 
 As I see it, three issues have been raised in the population discussion:
 (1) Urbanization as population policy (Cindy Cotter),
 (2) Education as repressive device (Doug Henwood), and
 (3) Education as an essential device (Peter Robertson).
 
No no no no no no. That's not what I said, or meant. I said that the 
World Bank is hiding its concern about the dark-skinned people of the 
world reproducing at too rapid a rate - an ancient racist fantasy - 
behind lots of humanist rhetoric. They are promoting the education of 
women not because it's the right thing to do - because women should be 
educated - but because they hope it will slow down population growth. My 
point was that this is very treacherous ground, and we must be very 
careful about hidden agendas.

Doug

Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)




Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread Peter.Dorman

Doug, this is an oversimplification, but it's a bit like: you're a radical who
does desktop publishing as against a practitioner of "radical desktop
publishing".  Of course, the analogy breaks down at various points, since
political economy is not apolitical.  But it is not (or at least need not be)
politically driven, either.  Part of it *is* simply technical, like desktop
publishing.

Peter Dorman



RE: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread A_CALLARI

Better yet (more in line with this way of thinking-e.g., message below),
why not simply call it "economics" and forget about the adjective
"political" as well as "radical"?

there already are organizations and journals that fill these spaces? why
shouldn't there continue to be one that is not afraid to use the word
"radical"? If there is a problem of perception,then we have to do a better
job at explaining/convincing etc., not run away--under the cover of
technique and "disciplinary" loyalty--as I am afraid happens all too often.
If someone does not want the word radical to appear on their vita, nobody
is forcing that on them as it is.
Antonio Callari 


Doug, this is an oversimplification, but it's a bit like: you're a radical who
does desktop publishing as against a practitioner of "radical desktop
publishing".  Of course, the analogy breaks down at various points, since
political economy is not apolitical.  But it is not (or at least need not be)
politically driven, either.  Part of it *is* simply technical, like desktop
publishing.

Peter Dorman
Antonio Callari
E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
POST MAIL:  Department of Economics
Franklin and Marshall College
Lancaster PA 17604-3003
PHONE:  717/291-3947
FAX:717/399-4413




Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread THOMPSON

It strikes me as naive to believe that one could hide one's political stance by
keeping words like radical off of one's resume.  If one is so deep in the
closet waiting out the seven years to a tenure decision, I suspect it would be
hard to find the door at that time.  But let's do an empirical test:  How many
of the folks out there in PEN-L land have successfully pursued this low-profile
strategy?  And how many folks like Julie or myself have survived without
expending energy on camouflage?

Sandy Thompson
Department of Economics
Vassar College

[EMAIL PROTECTED]



lobbying against welfare

1994-08-31 Thread Michael J. Brun



Response to Ellen McCrate: Piven and Cloward mention this issue
in *Regulating the Poor*, but I don't remember seeing detailed
documentation there.

Michael Brun

--
Michael J. Brun ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
408 W. Elm, #3, Urbana, IL 61801, USA,  (217) 344-5961



Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread DICKENS

An organization called UPE will attract different people and develop
in a different way than an organization called URPE.  Calling ourselves
"radical political economists" was already a compromise with the fear
of being labelled "Marxist economists."  Are we going to end up with
an organization where self-identified "Marxist economists" feel
unwelcome?

Edwin Dickens





Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread Peter.Dorman

First, I don't think the word "radical" should be dropped to improve anyone's
career chances.  It is a matter of principle.  Having said that, I will admit
to having expunged RRPE articles from my vita, but the real boost came when I
also eliminated *any* publication outside the narrow specialty particular
employers were looking for.  The shorter my vita, the more interviews I got.
(I still didn't get any jobs out of those interviews, however, so perhaps the
whole strategy was pointless.)  In other words, I think the real drawback of
publishing in RRPE is that, unless you are marketing yourself specifically as
a specialist in radical economics, you run the risk of appearing
insufficiently narrow.

Peter Dorman



Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread Chris Barrett

I do think some of the recent postings on the URPE name change issue 
are missing the serious point and attending instead to more trivial 
matters, such as what difference the name makes on resumes. The real issue
concerns the audience accessible to those of us who believe there is 
a better [feasible] way.  Do we advocate via a boldly named forum 
like that we have now, with the consequence that many reasonable 
folks who might be open to our approaches and proposals self-select 
out, leaving us to talk  basically among ourselves?  Or do we water 
down the public image, infiltrating the mainstream, if you will, 
[rather like Cockburn on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal] 
but risk losing our identity and any coherence in our message in the 
process?  

This is a difficult issue and might best be tackled by some 
empirical investigation:  how serious is the problem of self-selection 
out of the URPE orbit (i.e., how many of your social science 
colleagues read RRPE? how many are economists?  are any "non-
radicals"?)?  What have been the experiences of those radical 
economists who have ventured into the mainstream to publish and 
advocate? Have they been included as tokens? Marginalized more within 
than outside of the "neoclassical" circle? Had their ideas or even 
their research agendas coopted by their non-radical affiliations?  

As a younger (pre-tenure) economist deeply concerned about the fading 
identity of the left, I would ask members of this list (especially 
the more senior folks) to contribute some personal reflections on 
these and related issues.  Since I gather that the proposed (?) name 
change is not stemming from a fabulous new opportunity but instead 
from a sense of growing isolation, we need a sense of how "bad" each 
of the bad options is.

In solidarity --

Chris Barrett
 ===
Christopher B. Barrett  Phone: (608) 262-9491
Depts. of Agricultural EconomicsFax:   (608) 262-4376
and Economics Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of Wisconsin-Madison
427 Lorch Street
Madison, WI  53706



Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread Brian Eggleston

I am receiving many messages in duplicate.  Is anyone else so
afflicted?  Is there anything I can do to remedy the problem?

Thanks.

Brian Eggleston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: URPE = UPE?

1994-08-31 Thread Marshall Feldman


Posted on 31 Aug 1994 at 17:32:31 by Uriacc Mailer (002033)

Re: URPE = UPE?

Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 14:31:31 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: "Chris Barrett" [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I do think some of the recent postings on the URPE name change issue
are missing the serious point and attending instead to more trivial
matters, such as what difference the name makes on resumes. The real issue
concerns the audience accessible to those of us who believe there is
a better [feasible] way.  Do we advocate via a boldly named forum
like that we have now, with the consequence that many reasonable
folks who might be open to our approaches and proposals self-select
out, leaving us to talk  basically among ourselves?  Or do we water
down the public image, infiltrating the mainstream, if you will,
[rather like Cockburn on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal]
but risk losing our identity and any coherence in our message in the
process?
.. stuff deleted ..
Chris Barrett

I think Chris' point is right on the money.  I sometimes cringe when I assign
RRPE articles to my class because I strongly suspect some students dismiss or
pigeonhole the article ahead of time because it comes from a "radical"
journal.  In part this stems from a strong subjectivist, pomo position
advocated by one of my colleagues, so that many of our students come
to think everything is relative and simply a matter of opinion.  Since RRPE
articles label the opinion for them, the students don't have to evaluate
the article for themselves.  Other journals, e.g. the Cambridge Journal of
Economics or even the Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics don't have this
problem (most of our students don't know the difference between a Post-
Keynesian and a Post-Office, so even though they recognize the latter journal
as having a particular slant, they have no idea what that slant is).
So a more innocuous title might make the journal more useful, although
I honestly don't know what else I would call it.

Marsh Feldman
Community Planning  Phone: 401/792-2248
204 Rodman Hall   FAX: 401/792-4395
University of Rhode Island   Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kingston, RI 02881-0815

"Marginality confers legitimacy on one's contrariness."