Re: Robinson & theory vs. history

["claudia heller" <heller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Try also _ Economics, an Awkward Corner_,
 _ Freedom and Necessity_ and
 _ Economic Heresies_ .
You may also find something interesting in
 _ The Joan Robinson Legacy_ ed. by Ingrid Rima,
_ The Economics of Imperfect Competition: Joan Robinson and Beyond_ ed. by
Feiwel
 _ Joan Robinson and Modern Economic History_ also ed. by Feiwel
_ Joan Robinson and the Americans_ by Turner
_ The Economics of Joan Robinson_ ed. by Marcuzzo, Pasinetti and Roncaglia
_Cambridge Journal of Economics_7(3/4)
_Economie Appliquee 37(2)



----------
> From: Rosser Jr, John Barkley <rosserjb@xxxxxxx>
> To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT   <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Robinson & theory vs. history
> Date: Sábado, 8 de Março de 1997 19:13
>
>      I don't know if it is the first place she presented
> it, but Joan Robinson discusses the theory/history split in
> her _Economic Philosophy_.  Probably the majority of
> professional economists are unaware of the theory/history
> split in its old formulation.  Most economists are aware at
> a simplistic level that "theory does not always reflect
> reality," because the simplifying assumptions of theory are
> not always true.  One probably would find a higher
> percentage on this list than among the profession in
> general, especially in the US, who are aware of the
> Methodenstreit of Menger and Schmoller.
> Barkley Rosser
> On Sat, 8 Mar 1997 13:18:49 -0800 (PST) GREG RANSOM
> <GRANSOM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> > Quite a number of folks on PKT like to reference
> > Joan Robinson on the distinction between 'theory' and
> > 'history'.  Is there any literature on Robinson's
> > participation in the discussions of this classic problem
> > in economics?  I'd particularly find it helpful to get
> > some references which discuss Robinson's contribution in
> > relation to other economists, e.g. Frank Knight or the
> > American institutionalist, etc.
> >
> > As a further thought i'm wondering what percentage of
> > economists who are aware of the theory / history distinction
> > have any awareness of the roots of this distinction in
> > the work of Kant and Hegel, and the German neo-Kantians &
> > neo-Hegelians.  (And now that i mention it, what percentage
> > of contemporary economists would folks estimate have any
> > cognition of the theory / history distinction).  I'm guessing
> > that at least a few are aware of the theory / history
> > contention between Menger and Schmoller and a number of folks
> > in either camp.  Is there any awareness among economists of the
> > relation between the theory / history distinction in the work of
> > the neo-Kantians or neo-Hegelians and the discussions among
> > economists on this issue?  I'm having trouble finding much of any
> > literature on this topic, and would appreciate getting pointing
> > to any that anyone is familiar with.
> >
> > What i'm wondering is if the discussions of German language social
> > theorists & philosophers is the source of Joan Robinson's thinking on
> > the theory / history problem .. or if this might be said also to be
> > the source of contemporary Post Keynesian thinking on the issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > Greg Ransom
> > gransom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm
> >
> >
>
> --
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> rosserjb@xxxxxxx
>
>