SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Anil Kumar Nauriya)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:49 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines)
  James Ahiakpor  feels I misapplied his quotation.   
  What he means to say I suppose is that he didnt intend his statement   
  to be used in the context of child labour (I didnt have any   
  particular type of child labour in mind - so far as I was concerned   
  it could be the child labour in the England of Marx's day).     
    
  I have sought simply to make the point that economics perhaps cannot   
  be reduced to a simple theory of choice. I think earlier writers   
  like Gunnar Myrdal understood this well enough. The Political   
  Element, the "Values" Element, the Normative Element  in economics    
  deserve express   attention.  It is  the interaction between   
  theories of choice and these elements that constitutes the   
  discipline.   
  
  Anil Nauriya           
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2