Re: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?

[Andrew Brown <A.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thought you might be interested….

 

-----Original Message-----
From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx
Sent: 31 August 2005 14:26
To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OPE-L] is there "no longer a single dominant school" in economics?

 

I have assigned the (new) 3rd edition of _Understanding Capitalism_ for

a couple of sections of macro courses that I am teaching this semester.

The 3rd edition -- in which Frank Roosevelt was added as a co-author

besides Samuel Bowles and Richard Edwards -- is in many ways different

from the preceding two editions.  The fundamental reason for the changes,

I believe, is a change in perspective by the authors.

 

While it might be seen as still being an "alternative" text and it is

certainly more progressive than mainstream texts,  the authors have

clearly become believers in the "new pluralism" in economics.  What

has changed in recent years, they claim,  is that economists "have turned their

attention to inequality, the importance of ethical values and unselfish

motives in economic behavior, the exercise of power, the way that history

shapes economic events, and how the economy shapes who we are as

individuals and as people in societies and cultures."    Note that the way

in which "economics has changed in significant ways" concerns -- for B, E &

R -- the *content* of their analysis rather than merely the analytical

techniques employed.  Indeed, the authors claim:

 

     "Of course, economics remains a controversial topic.  There is,

      however, no longer a single dominant school but rather many distinct

      approaches, each with its own merits and shortcomings."

 

Hmmm....

 

This leads me to ask:

 

*Have the perspectives in  the economics profession changed significantly

since the 1980s _or_ have the perspectives of Bowles, Edwards and Roosevelt

changed _or_ have both changed?*

 

*What do you think?*

 

The authors claim that since the 1st edition of this book, the Nobel Prize:

 

    "has been awarded to many of the economists who have inspired our own

     work.  Among them are Amartya Sen and Ronald Coase ..., as well as

     George Akerlof, Joseph Stiglitz, Robert Fogel, Douglass North,

     Daniel Kahnemann, Vernon Smith, John Nash, and others."

 

Yet, if one were to examine either of the previous editions of this book, one

would be hard pressed to discover ways in which any of the above

"inspired our own work."    It is therefore unclear when they were so "inspired".

It is also unclear how exactly the above "inspired" Bowles, Edwards and

Roosevelt.   Can it be that they were really inspired by Robert Fogel --

an apologist for slavery?   What inspiration could they have received from

marginalist economic historian Douglass North, etc.?  

 

*Should _we_ be inspired by any of the recent Nobel Prize winners?  If so,

which ones?*

 

In the text, the authors especially highlight the contributions of Ronald Coase

and Amartya Sen?   

 

*Are there any perspectives of Coase and Sen that we should especially take

note of and incorporate within our analysis?* 

 

As I explained previously, I had used the two earlier editions of

this book as texts for classes that I had taught on introductory economics.

As I have more experience working with this edition, I'll let you know more

about that experience.  I can tell you that the current edition does retain much

of the content and focus of the previous editions.  The sub-title is similar --

"competition, command, and change" (but "in the US Economy" was dropped

-- reflecting more of a global focus) -- and the focus on class, race, and gender

remains.  Analytically -- as was the case with prior editions --  the concepts of

the surplus product (and class conflict over), the importance (and determinants) of

the rate of profit,  economic dualism, segmented labor markets, and even social

structures of accumulation remain.  This is the case even though I don't think

that Bowles and Edwards could still be said to be part of the Social Structure of

Accumulation (SSA) perspective.  (Terry: am I mistaken?)    So I guess the

bottom line is that while there are many significant changes in the text, much of the

flavor and content remains the same or is quite similar.  One wonders, though,

what the next edition will look like ....

 

In solidarity, Jerry