I gather from Pat Gunning's comments that in his view economics   
should confine itself completely to marginal adjustments in behavior;   
that it will treat cultural, law, power, etc. as all "black boxes"   
that are external to the interests of economic as a scholarly field.  
  
Thus, it is of no scholarly interest to economists how actors are   
constrained in their behavior (choices) by these frameworks, nor how   
actors might seek to change the constraints (e.g., getting new laws   
or winning court cases--in the common law Anglo-American world).    
This is consistent with the thread that has suggested "real"   
economics does not concern itself with policy choices or even,   
perhaps, behavior in the real (empirical) world; those areas are left   
to mere political scientists.  
  
A Nobel Laureate in economics told me many years ago that the   
emphasis in economics on marginal analysis--which is what I take to   
be Pat's objective--makes economics as a field marginal.  Because, he   
continued, it fails to address why people behave (choose) as they do   
to begin with.  
  
Pat, do I have it right?  
  
Fred Carstensen