Re: some questions

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not sure when the heterodox part of the department at the University of
Utah became strong. But when I started at Utah in 1986, there was a very
strong Marxist group in the department, as well as Post-Keynesians and one
or two Institutionalists. Utah's heterodox tradition had already been well
established, so I assume it started in the 70's. I believe, for example,
that E.K. Hunt was hired sometime in the '70's. Alan Sievers, a prominent
Institutionalist had been there since before the flood.

Utah offered (and still does) fields in History of Thought, Economic History
and Political Economy. History of Thought and Economic History had strong
Institutionalist components. Political Economy was strongly Marxist. In
addition, Labor Economics had a strong Institutionalist flavor and Monetary
Theory had some Post-Keynesian content (Davidson's book "Money in the Real
World" was required seminar reading in the mid-80's. Even Utah's core had a
strong emphasis on "doctrines".

For some reason, Utah seems to almost always get left off the list of
heterodox departments. It would be good if people would correct this
oversight.

The department has had its share of problems and infighting, but it still
deserves to be noted for its heterodox components.

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee, Frederic [mailto:leefs@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 12:40 PM
To: 278287@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; abarrera@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ajmearman@xxxxxxxxx;
alaramie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; alexandra.bernasek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
altman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; amitava.k.dutt.1@xxxxxx; annie_1917@xxxxxxxxx;
asatar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; austpatr@xxxxxxx; barbon01@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
barone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; barry.p.keating.1@xxxxxx; bbalak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
bcoggins@xxxxxxxxxx; bergp867@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; bmoore@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
bober@xxxxxxx; calitrir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; cantin@xxxxxxxx;
cgraham@xxxxxxxxx; charles.k.wilber.1@xxxxxx; charles_whalen@xxxxxxxxx;
clark.everling@xxxxxxx; danby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dandrews@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
david.bunting@xxxxxxxxxxxx; davis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dfinn@xxxxxxxxxx;
dgoldste@xxxxxxxxx; dmackenz_2000@xxxxxxxxx; dostaler.gilles@xxxxxxx;
douglas.kinnear@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; edickens@xxxxxxxx; eford@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
ejmck@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ejnell@xxxxxxx; elfitz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
enrico.marcelli@xxxxxxx; estillwa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
fazz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; figartd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Frederic Lee;
friends-of-pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; fritz-efaw@xxxxxxx;
galbraith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gbuchhlz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; hammond@xxxxxxx; henryjf@xxxxxxxx;
heypowell@xxxxxxxx; icare@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; irima@xxxxxxx;
j.harvey@xxxxxxx; James Sturgeon; janeclary@xxxxxxxxx; jmoudud@xxxxxxx;
johan.deprez@xxxxxxx; john.burns@xxxxxxxxxxxx; jsawyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
jsmithin@xxxxxxxx; krishra@xxxxxxxxxxx; kunwards@xxxxxxxxx;
lajeuner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lhatch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lhengels@xxxxxxx;
lobiondg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; lprochon@xxxxxxxx; m.gaffney@xxxxxx;
mark.setterfield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; martin.h.wolfson.1@xxxxxx; Mathew
Forstater; mbernstein@xxxxxxxx; mccainra@xxxxxxxxxx;
milbergw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; mineka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
minkler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mlavoie@xxxxxxxxxx; mongiovg@xxxxxxxxxxx;
mseccare@xxxxxxxxxx; mutarie@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ngoodwin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
njshapiro@xxxxxxx; nsedgley@xxxxxxxxxx; oboyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
pdavidson@xxxxxxx; phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
pressman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pressman@xxxxxxxxxxxx; pshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
r25030@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Randall Wray; rbalakra@xxxxxxxxxxx;
rebeccacoke@xxxxxxxxx; rholt@xxxxxxx; riderc@xxxxxxxxxxx;
rmrubin@xxxxxxxxxxx; robburns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rosserjb@xxxxxxx;
rossermv@xxxxxxx; rrotheim@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sasanf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
scohn@xxxxxxxx; sffein@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; stackm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephanie
Bell; sturn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; summrfld@xxxxxxxx; tmott@xxxxxx;
tnatarajan@xxxxxxxxx; tpalley@xxxxxxxxxx; tveblen@xxxxxxx;
welchpj@xxxxxxx; winslow@xxxxxxxx; yokokawan@xxxxxxx
Subject: some questions


> Dear Colleague,
>
> I am engaged in some historical research on the history of heterodox
economics in the United States.  There are a couple of areas that I would
like to tap your collective knowledge by asking you a few questions.  Any
response that you can give will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Fred Lee
>
>
> Query 1:  I have tracked down the names of a number of economists that
were affected by McCarthyism--my account of McCarthyism with the names are
given in the attachment below.  Do you know of any economists that I have
overlooked?  References to their stories would be greatly appreciated.
>
>
>
> Query 2:  The contested landscape of American economics circa 1970 was
very real to economists and graduate students who challenged mainstream
economics.  I am aware of some of the stories about harassment etc. and have
made a stab of capturing the feelings/situation of the times--see the
attachment below.  But I am not sure how accurate or complete it is.  Thus
if you have any comments about the attachment I would like to hear them.
More importantly I would to have more incidents of harassment affecting
Institutional economists, radical-Marxist economists, and Post Keynesian
economists that occurred between 1965 and 1975--either personal stories or
stories that you are knowledgeable about.
>
>
> Query 3:  I am trying to identify Ph.D. granting economic departments in
American universities that
>
> a.	 had a clear program in heterodox economics;
>
> b.	offered fields in political economy, Institutional economics, social
economics, radical-Marxist economics, and/or Post 	Keynesian economics;
and
>
> c.	had an URPE chapter.
>
> The time period I am interested in is from 1970 to 1980.
>
> I have already identified American U., UC-Riverside, U.Mass Amherst, Note
Dame, New School, Temple, U of Texas, U of New Hampshire, U of Conn.,
Rutgers, U of Maryland as fulfilling to some degree (a) and (b) above--BUT
ARE THERE OTHERS?  Also aside from AU did any of the above have URPE
chapters and if so when were they formed.
>
>
>
> >  <<mccarthyism.doc>> > >  <<contested.doc>>