Thanks to Peter G. Klein for the Crooked Timber post.  To me the most 
interesting point from that post (see below for the cite) is this: 
"Given the choice, economists are far more likely to cite to formal 
than to non-formal work."  Henry at Crooked Timber goes on to quote 
Paul Krugman on this point.

My question is this.  How do we know that the essential content of 
(some of) Greif's work is not the same as the contributions of 
"Gambetta (working on trust and the Sicilian Mafia), Landa (working 
on ethnic Chinese traders) and Bernstein (working on New York diamond 
merchants)"-- in other words of people working in sociology and 
political science and less-formal economics?  Isn't it possible that 
stripped to its essence Greif's contribution (or parts of it) is 
indistinguishable from that of these others who are asking very 
similar questions?

(I don't mean to impugn Greif's integrity here. Researchers of all 
types make independent discoveries of the same basic idea.)

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.)

Krugman says that economists need to communicate with each 
other.  But they also need to communicate--learn from and teach--the 
wider world.

Frank M. Howland



Peter G. Klein <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
A somewhat different view has emerged in the blogosphere, e.g.:

<http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/08/13/greif-under-fire-again/>http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2009/08/13/greif-under-fire-again/

and

<http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/28/anger-and-greif/>http://crookedtimber.org/2009/07/28/anger-and-greif/

Peter Klein