Here it is, resent. ... TA
________________________________________
From: Tony Aspromourgos [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, 28 January 2012 4:07 PM
To: Societies for the History of Economics
Subject: RE: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
In 2004 I published an article on "Sraffian Research Programmes and Unorthodox Economics" in the Review of Political Economy (vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 179-206), in which I made the observation: "In many respects the Sraffian project deserved to be called 'neo-Classical economics', had not a bastard Pretender already stolen that name" (p. 184).
I also noted that the term "neo-Ricardian" had been used before Rowthorn (1974), by Sergio Parrinello, in the title of 1970 paper on international trade theory (p. 185, n. 7): "Introduzione ad una teoria neoricardiana del commercio internazionale", Studi Economici, vol. 25, pp. 267-321. But perhaps Prof Parrinello later regretted using the term.
Tony Aspromourgos
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of mason gaffney [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, 28 January 2012 1:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
None of Alan Freeman's labels for Sraffians are helpful to those of us not already steeped in Sraffa. How about something for us, the rest of the world?
Mason Gaffney
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alan Freeman
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:28 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
The short answer would be 'ask the followers of Piero Sraffa'.
I'm not 100% sure what is meant by the 'proper' way to describe a current of thought. I think it depends on the objective. There are third objectives, I think, which matter. The first is that the term should genuinely describe all those involved - it should be generic and informative. The second is that it should be non-rhetorical or neutral, so that naming something in order to make a claim, which is a substitute for logical argument, should be deprecated. This excludes both pejorative names ('neo-ricardians') or self-promotional claims ('modern classical political economy').
When we conceived the IWGVT rules (http://www.iwgvt.org/about%20us.htm#ScholarshipGuidelines) which were intended as guidelines to promote engaged scholarly debate (and which constitute the editorial guidelines for the online journal Critique of Political Economy), we suggested that a current of thought should normally be referred to in the same way that describes itself, and certainly not in a way that it disagrees with. This ensures that rhetorical devices such as tendentious naming (for example 'neo-Ricardians') do not substitute for the actual logic of discussion.
However, self-naming can be used to make 'self-promotional' claims not justified by the content of the actual current involved. This is also pejorative to others who share the identification but not the point of view. Julian's point is well-taken. Naming should be non-exclusive.
What do the followers of Piero Sraffa call themselves? Ian Steedman suggested the title 'surplus school' which many followers of Sraffa used at one time, but it has passed I think into disuse. The term 'long-run analysis' or 'long-period analysis' has been used by writers such as Kurz. Pasinetti introduced the term 'linear production system' which I think is descriptive, neutral, generic and non-exclusive. My inclination is to use the term 'linear production systems theorists' but that's a bit of a mouthful.
One can simply say 'post-Sraffians' which is also descriptive, neutral, generic and non-exclusive.
Regards
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wells, Julian
Sent: January-27-12 5:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
Daniela's suggested would appear to include (or exclude, depending which way round you look at it) Marxist currents including followers of the New Interpretation and Temporal Single-System currents, among others.
Julian Wells
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Parisi Daniela Fernanda
Sent: 27 January 2012 00:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [SHOE] R: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
I think the correct term is "modern clkassical political economy".
You may have a good analysis of this 'problem' in: A. Roncaglia, Piero Sraffa, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 . He defines three sraffian followers: Pasinetti, Garegnani e Sylos Labini (cfr. cap. 8).
Daniela Parisi
________________________________
Da: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] per conto di andres lazzarini [[log in to unmask]]
Inviato: giovedì 26 gennaio 2012 22.49
A: [log in to unmask]
Oggetto: Re: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
As far as I know, the (unfortunate) term "Neo-Ricardian" was first introduced by Bob Rowthorn in a paper published in 1974 in the New Left Review. Later on it was also used by Frank Hahn in his 1982 CJE paper "The neo-Ricardians".
Andres Lazzarini
2012/1/26 Matias Vernengo <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Yep we prefer Sraffian. Neo-Ricardian was a name given by certain Marxist authors that suggested that Sraffa was not a Marxist. Also, more recently the term Neo-Ricardian has been used with respect to Barro´s Ricardian Equivalence theory.
Matías Vernengo
Associate Professor
University of Utah
260 Central Campus Drive, Room 371
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
(801) 349-9462
________________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Lee, Frederic [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
That is correct. Look at "Conference of Socialist Economists and the Emergence of Heterodox Economics in Post-War Britain," Capital and Class, 75 (2001) for some discussion about the rise of the use of neo-Ricardian as a name for Sraffians.
Fred Lee
Professor Frederic S. Lee
Editor, American Journal of Economics and Sociology President, Association for Institutional Thought Department of Economics University of Missouri-Kansas City
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
USA
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Tel: 816-235-2543
For Heterodox Economics Newsletter: http://www.heterodoxnews.com For the Association for Heterodox Economics: http://www.hetecon.net For Association of Institutional Thought: http://www.associationforinstitutionalthought.org/
-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] On Behalf Of Stanislaw Kwiatkowski
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [SHOE] what is the proper way to call a follower of Pierro Sraffa?
I have a vague memory of reading somewhere, that followers of Pierro Sraffa dislike being called "neo-Ricardians".
My problem is that I don't remember were have I read it.
If there is anybody on the list (knowledgeable enough or considering himself a follower of Sraffa) that would know what is the proper way of addressing them, I would be much obliged for a tip, and - if possible - a citation.
Thank you in advance,
Stan Kwiatkowski,
Poland
--
Stanisław Kwiatkowski
Instytut Misesa
www.mises.pl<http://www.mises.pl>
+48 609711878
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
|
