Re: taxonomizing heterodoxy -- request for references

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Look at Stuart Plattner's "Economic Anthropology". It is a long text
designed for advanced undergrads and grad students. He covers the
Substantivist/Formalist Debate, as well as Marxist and Neo-Classical
schools. he does not give much coverage though to cultural materialists or
sociobiologists.

For older debates, see some of Sahlin's work. Also, much of the literature
on peasants is relevant too.

As far as I can tell, Economic Anthropology does take heterodox schools very
seriously. In fact, neo-classical economics is viewed as nothing more than a
tool by most-sometimes useful, sometimes not. Economic Anthropology as a
field is eclectic and empirically based. The paradigm lines are heavily
blurred.

Integrating "Macroeconomic Theory" (as opposed to behavioral assumptions of
economics) is extremely difficult-unless you really believe that you can
calculate the size of the multiplier that came about due to spending on
pyramids...

-----Original Message-----
From: Colin Danby [mailto:danbyc@xxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:38 PM
To: pkt
Subject: taxonomizing heterodoxy -- request for references


For a short paper aimed at persuading economic anthropologists to take
heterodox econ paradigms more seriously, I want to reference the best
accessible literature taxonomizing schools of thought. Taxonomies would
include, ideally, Institutionalist and Austrian schools as well as PK.
(Economic Anthro tends to divide "economics" into just neoclassical and
Marxian.)  Suggestions?

Thanks, Colin