[OPE-L] Is this an example of the "new pluralism" in economics?

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Thu Mar 10 2005 - 18:09:36 EST

Dear Colleagues

Thanks for copying me into the conversation. To clarify, about 1981 I
came to the conclusion that Sraffian analysis was essentially static,
and thereby inadequate. Ten years late I published a book with the
title "After Marx and Sraffa". In an essay I published in 1997 I
argued for pluralism in the academy, not in a single person's head.

Best wishes
Geoff Hodgson

At 18:31 10/03/2005, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>At 12:36 PM -0500 3/10/05, glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote:
>>I attended a session on the "new pluralism" at the EEA conference
>>at which Antonio spoke (but Stephen C and Susan Feiner were
>>unable to attend).
>>Then, I received the following in the mail today.
>>Clearly, Geoff Hodgson is a heterodox economist who is committed to
>It's the pluralism in Hodgson's own thought that confuses me.
>What I don't understand is how he combines his prior commitment to
>Sraffian economics (developed with brilliant clarity, it should be
>said) with his later interest in evolutionary economics. If by
>evolutionary economics one means in part development--that is
>evolution involves more than a change from one state to the next in
>comparative static fashion; evolutionary development meaning in
>other words that a later state can actually be explained by a
>previous one--then how possibly can the inherently static neo
>Ricardian formalism be integrated with a developmental evolutionary

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 12 2005 - 00:00:01 EST