[OPE-L:5768] Re: Re: heterodox theories of value

From: Ajit Sinha (ajitsinha@lbsnaa.ernet.in)
Date: Mon Jun 04 2001 - 01:37:34 EDT

Steve Keen wrote:

>  Not that I'd normally offer to speak for P(aul)D(avidson), but the
> essence of the P(ost)K(eynesian) tradition is that there is no theory
> of value. They promote what they call a 'horses for courses' approach
> that whatever methodology applies for a given question is OK. This
> position has been well critiqued (from a neoclassical perspective) by
> Roger Backhouse, asking that if any methodology is OK, why do they
> object so strongly to neoclassical methods?


Steve, I think 'horses for courses' could also be interpreted as
accepting the Ricardian, and in my estimation Sraffian, position that
there is no such thing as a 'general theory'. In that case, it is
legitimate to pick up a theory of a particular problem and take it apart
on the ground of theoretical incoherence. But I feel that unless a
tradition in economic theory has a theory of value, it will be hard for
it to erect an impressive structure. Furthermore, I think that a theory
of value is essentially about a static problem. There cannot be a
dynamic theory of value (if we allow technical change through time)
simply because you cannot have an invariable measuring rod in this
context. So one needs to think about the nature of a dynamic theory.
Cheers, ajit sinha

> On utility theory and marginalism, these neoclassical concepts are
> almost universally rejected by PKs, though for a wide range of
> reasons. There is currently a discussion on PKT in which several list
> School of Economics and Finance
> Australia
> s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
> Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT