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:
Pedro Teixeira <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:30:45 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (129 lines)
Dear David,

I wonder if you could be more explicit about the criteria used to classify one scholar as notably or only a little or significantly.
Although I understand that there is an inevitable degree of subjectivity involved in these assessments, I think our reply to your questions is largely conditioned by those criteria.
I also wonder what was the reason to exclude authors such as Gary Becker, Joseph Stiglitz, or Gunnar Myrdal.

Best regards,

Pedro

Pedro Nuno Teixeira
Director - CIPES, Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies - www.cipes.up.pt
Associate Professor - Faculty of Economics, University of Porto - www.fep.up.pt

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 7:35 AM, Colander, David C. <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
I playing the role of overseer of a project organized by Dan Klein to consider the intellectual migration of Nobel Prize winning economist’s policy views. The project  will be published in the journal, Econ Journal Watch, in September.  What “overseer” means is that I am a type of referee before publication, and my job is to keep him honest, and see that his analysis is not overly influenced by his political views. His goal with the project, is to see which Nobel Prize winning economists can be classified as having become more or less classical liberal. Classical liberal is, of course, a difficult term to define, but what he means by classical liberal is a presumption in policy judgment away from government involvement and toward letting the market handle it.   Given this definition, he has tentatively come up with the following readings for 16 laureates:


Laureates Who Grew
Either More or Less
Classical Liberal




Grew
More Classical Liberal



Quite significantly


James Buchanan
Ronald Coase
Robert Fogel
Friedrich Hayek
Franco Modigliani
Douglass North
Vernon Smith



Notably



Theodore Schultz



Only a little



Kenneth Arrow
Milton Friedman
Eric Maskin
(Edmund Phelps?)
George Stigler





Grew
Less
Classical
Liberal


Quite significantly



Ragnar Frisch
Bertil Ohlin


Notably



Peter Diamond


Only a little



Paul Krugman


Please note that Dan's placements are still tentative. He and I fully recognize that there are many different definitions of classical liberal that one could use, and I am not asking people to comment on those definitions here. (I will comment on it at length in my contribution to his project.) But I would be interested in the list’s views about the movements he has found.  Specifically, I have two questions:
1.      Do any of his classifications stand out as not fitting your expectations?
2.      Are there other Nobel Prize winners who you would see as having moved in their policy views that should be included in the list?

Thanks,

Dave

David Colander
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
802-443-5302<tel:802-443-5302>







--
Mario J. Rizzo
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY
Department of Economics
19 West 4th Street,
Seventh Floor (725)
New York, NY 10012
212-998-8932 (telephone, e-mail preferred)
212-995-4186 (fax)

Personal website: http://works.bepress.com/mario_rizzo

Colloquium: http://econ.as.nyu.edu/object/econ.event.colloquium

Blog:  http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com

Book Series: http://www.routledge.com/books/series/Routledge_Foundations_of_the_Market_Economy/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2