After Myrdal-transparency requirements have been met, historians should describe, interpret and illuminate dynamics: is it necessary to 'favor or oppose'?   

Is it disputed that Popper was influential? If not, his influence should be examined (taken 'seriously').

Since the LSE economists sought to Popperify economics, it is their definition that counts (described, through an almost-verbatim account of their seminar proceedings, in *The Eclipse of Keynesianism: The Political Economy of the Chicago Counter-Revolution*).

There are two archival and interpretative chapters on Popper's influence in

Leeson, R. 2013. *Archival Insights into the Evolution of Economics Volume 5: Hayek a Collaborative Biography Part 1 Influences, from Mises to Bartley*. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.       
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mason Gaffney" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Friday, 27 March, 2015 6:16:59 AM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] imperfect competition in textbooks

Dear Leeson,
	Some of us never were or felt compelled to take Popper seriously. Since you and several others apparently do, either pro or con, please help us follow your thinking by defining "Popperify", and why you favor or oppose it.

Thank you,

Mason Gaffney

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Leeson
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] imperfect competition in textbooks

The LSE attempt to 'test' monopolistic competition was, of course, part of their attempt to Popperify economics.    

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Rizzo" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 24 March, 2015 9:19:54 PM
Subject: Re: [SHOE] imperfect competition in textbooks

I remember Stigler telling me when I was a student that "we" did not need monopolistic competition theory because anything important (or of interest) could be explained without it. And what could not be explained did not exist. The implication of all this is that perfect competition and monopoly were the default theories -- any deviation better have a damn good justification. As to putting it into textbooks -- good economists need to know what theories were out there. This doesn't constitute an endorsement by any means.

Mario Rizzo.

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Robert Leeson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Chapter 3 contains the only archival analysis (based on the MMT 
> seminar
> notes) of the LSE-Chicago dispute over monopolistic competition. The 
> changes in Stigler's textbook are also analysed.
>
> Leeson, R. 2000. *The Eclipse of Keynesianism: The Political Economy 
> of the Chicago Counter-Revolution*. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven G. Medema" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Sunday, 22 March, 2015 6:29:25 AM
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] imperfect competition in textbooks
>
> Larry,
>
> Stigler took up imperfect competition in several chapters in the 1946 
> edition of The Theory of Price, having more or less ignored the topic 
> in The Theory of Competitive Price (1941). In the next two editions, 
> he narrowed the discussion to two chapters, dealing with "monopoly" 
> and "oligopoly," respectively. My sense is that the 1946 edition 
> actually has more to the discussion of imperfect competition than the 
> later editions, but one would have to look more closely to confirm this.
> Chamberlin and Robinson show up in each of these editions.
>
> Have a look at the piece by Kamerschen and Sridhar in the June 2009 
> issue of JHET. I seem to recall that this article tills some of this soil.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Steve Medema
>
> > Lawrence Boland <mailto:[log in to unmask]> March 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM 
> > Interesting, Roger.
> >
> > But I am now wondering about when explicitly imperfect competition 
> > (as opposed to a monopoly) was recognized in a separate chapter. And 
> > imperfect competition rather than monopolistic competition.
> >
> > There is also the issue of when the Chicago school textbooks ever 
> > recognized imperfect competition as a topic for a chapter. My 
> > impression is that they usually saw the issue as perfect competition 
> > vs. monopolies only. And there is Chris Archibald's REStud 1961 
> > article "Chamberlin versus Chicago" to consider in this regard.
> >
> > LB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Roger Sandilands <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > March 21, 2015 at 9:41 AM
> > It should be noted that Allyn Young (1876-1929) had a reasonably 
> > sophisticated exposition of the competitive constraints on monopoly 
> > pricing, with diagrams showing the profit-maximising condition of 
> > marginal cost being equal to “marginal receipts”, in his LSE 
> > lectures, 1927-29, as revealed by the notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor 
> > and Maurice Allen, and published in 1990 in the Journal of Economic Studies, 17, 3/4.
> >
> > These lectures embellish what had already been published in the 4th 
> > edition (1926) of the top-selling textbook, Outlines of Economics, 
> > by R T Ely, Allyn Young, Thomas Adams and Max Lorenz (with Young 
> > being responsible for revising the chapters on Value and Price).
> >
> > Young was Edward Chamberlin’s PhD supervisor at Harvard, and at the 
> > LSE he made reference (JES, p.53) to “Chamber’s [sic] about to be 
> > published book ‘Monop. Comp.’”. [Of course Chamberlin's book did not 
> > appear until a few years later, in 1933.]
> >
> > In a letter to Young’s biographer, Charles Blitch, in 1973, Earl 
> > Hamilton wrote: “One thing that my notes taken [at Harvard] in
> > 1924-1926 conclusively showed was that every worthwhile idea in E.H.
> > Chamberlin’s subsequent work on imperfect competition had been 
> > clearly expounded by Allyn Young in class long before Chamberlin put 
> > pen to paper.” (See R.J. Sandilands, “New Evidence on Allyn Young’s 
> > Style and Influence as a Teacher”, Journal of Economic Studies, 
> > 26,6, 1999, p.469.)
> >
> > - Roger Sandilands
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] on 
> > behalf of Robert Leeson [[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2015 12:27 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: [SHOE] imperfect competition in textbooks
> >
> > If you can't access it I could send you a scan of the chapter. In
> > brief: Stigler had a sophisticated understanding of knowledge 
> > construction and destruction - his plan was to drive 
> > monopolistic/imperfect competition 'deeper and deeper into the
> footnotes'.
> >
> > This may reflect the influence of Ludwig 'von' Mises (1998 [1944], 
> > 18,
> > 16):
> >
> > “the tears [socialists] weep over the vanishing of competition are 
> > crocodile tears. The only fault they find in monopoly is that it is 
> > private monopoly and not government monopoly.” Imperfect Competition 
> > as developed by Joan Robinson (1933) was a “ruse ... Mrs Robinson is 
> > probably in her subconscious fully aware of the fallacies of her 
> > arguments. Otherwise she would not have advocated the German and 
> > Russian methods for the suppression of all criticism. No independent 
> > universities, learned societies, and publishing houses should be 
> > allowed to exist. One can agree with the lady that her doctrine 
> > could not survive except under these conditions. Mrs Robinson wants, 
> > moreover, in the same way to prevent the existence of independent 
> > churches, theatres, and philharmonic societies.”
> >
> > *The Economist* review of *Anti-Capitalist Mentality* (“Liberalism 
> > in Caricature”, 13 April 1957) described Mises:
> >
> > "as a student of human nature he is worse than null and as a debater 
> > he is of Hyde Park standard ... To find an equal dogmatism coupled 
> > with an equally simpliste view of the springs of conduct, an equal 
> > propensity for propping up dummies and knocking them down, an equal 
> > contempt for human facts coupled with an equally vituperative style, 
> > one would have to turn to the less sophisticated Marxists .... The 
> > case for freedom needs making and re-making, tirelessly and 
> > ingeniously; but its cause is ill served by such stuff as this.”
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lawrence Boland" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Saturday, 21 March, 2015 12:00:28 AM
> > Subject: Re: [SHOE] imperfect competition in textbooks
> >
> > Robert, can you give us a hint as to what that chapter says 
> > regarding the two questions, please?
> >
> > LB
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lawrence A. Boland, FRSC
> > Department of Economics, Simon Fraser University Burnaby BC Canada 
> > V5A-1S6
> > phone: 778-782-4487, web: http://www.sfu.ca/~boland Lawrence Boland 
> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> March 20, 2015 at 10:00 AM Robert, can you 
> > give us a hint as to what that chapter says regarding the two 
> > questions, please?
> >
> > LB
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Robert Leeson <mailto:[log in to unmask]> March 20, 2015 at 6:30 
> > AM There is a chapter on this (and Stigler's 'neglect is the highway 
> > to oblivion' response to imperfect competition) in
> >
> > Leeson, R. 2000. *The Eclipse of Keynesianism: The Political Economy 
> > of the Chicago Counter-Revolution*. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave 
> > Macmillan.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lawrence Boland" <[log in to unmask]>
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: Friday, 20 March, 2015 10:19:36 AM
> > Subject: [SHOE] imperfect competition in textbooks
> >
> > I have a question that only historians of economics can answer.
> >
> > After Joan Robinson published her imperfect competition book in 
> > 1933, how long did it take for economics text books to add a chapter 
> > on imperfect competition? I have the fourth edition of Boulding's 
> > micro text and it has it but that one is rather late.
> >
> > Did this have to take until explicit micro vs. macro texts started 
> > to appear? So far we have only be able to put that in the late 
> > 1940s.
> >
> > LB
> > Lawrence Boland <mailto:[log in to unmask]> March 19, 2015 at 8:19 PM I 
> > have a question that only historians of economics can answer.
> >
> > After Joan Robinson published her imperfect competition book in 
> > 1933, how long did it take for economics text books to add a chapter 
> > on imperfect competition? I have the fourth edition of Boulding's 
> > micro text and it has it but that one is rather late.
> >
> > Did this have to take until explicit micro vs. macro texts started 
> > to appear? So far we have only be able to put that in the late 1940s.
> >
> > LB
>
> --
> Dr. Steven G. Medema
> University Distinguished Professor of Economics President's Teaching 
> Scholar Director, University Honors and Leadership Program
>
> UHL Address:
> University Honors and Leadership Program
> 1047 Ninth Street Park, Room 200
> CB 199, PO Box 173364
> University of Colorado Denver
> Denver, CO 80217-3364
> Phone: 303-556-8121
> Fax: 303-556-6744
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> Economics Address:
> Department of Economics
> University of Colorado Denver
> CB 181, PO Box 173364
> Denver, CO 80217-3364
> USA
> Phone: 303-315-2032
> Fax:   303-315-2048
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>



--
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/