Frank Howland wrote:
 >
 > How do we know that what's really valuable in Greif's work is not the
 > elaborate game theory apparatus, but a simpler logical argument, parts of
 > which might be very similar to the contributions of the non-economists?
 > (I ask this question before bothering to read Greif's work--I would not
 > be surprised to find that he does have some very important insights which
 > require his formal language to convey--given his reputation, that seems
 > likely.)
 >


A different lesson strikes me than the application of game theory:  Greif
could have done a service to economists by opening up more social science
literature to economists. Saying this is not intended to discredit him.
Very few economists do so, but we could benefit from learning about the
richer parts of other social scientist's work.

The quotation accusations seem bogus.

Michael Perelman