On Thu, 4 Apr 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hunt & Sherman and Riddell, Shackelford & Stamos aren't too one sided, > but both have their problems, especially, in terms of organization and > difficulty. > > Although Bowles & Edwards is somewhat one-sided, it bends the stick in > the opposite direction and would be my choice the next time I have a > choice. I used the first edition with some success. The greatest weakness > of the first edition -- its minimal coverage of mainstream theory -- has > been corrected somewhat in the second edition. I have found that Ridel, Shackleford, and Stamos, though including some good institutional material isn't pedagogically sufficient on main-stream theory for my students (who need maximum slow going through all the gory details). I love Bowles and Edwards first part but the latter two thirds of the book is really much too mathematical and otherwise obtuse for my students. (I also have a problem - and my students definitely do - with the singleminded focus on the labor market) It also is designed as a "political economy" course with constant references to Neoclassical economics which presume that the reader knows what your talking about. I've been trying to just use the first few chapters after going through a mainstream course with Colander. We definitely need abook which would teach Neoclassical and radical PE at a level which would be easily comprehended by intro students at the places where we teach - in one semester. I'm glad Eric raised this though - and I intend to check out Naples and Nadine. In Solidarity, Ron Baiman Roosevelt U., Chicago
