File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2002/bhaskar.0204, message 82


From: "Paschalis Arvanitidis" <p.arvanitidis-AT-abdn.ac.uk>
Subject: BHA: Re: path dependence - thanks!
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:28:02 +0100


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


Dear Altug and all,

First, I would like to point out that my understanding of the contribution of CR to social science and economics in particular is a bit different from that of prof. Fine. CR, for me, is neither just a methodological perspective nor an economics paradigm alternative to mainstream economics. It is mainly a philosophical stance which can team up with certain economic traditions (heterodox, e.g. post-Keynesian, institutionalist, etc) that are compatible with its bases, to provide an integrated framework for analysing and understanding economic and wider social phenomena.

Second, and in regard to the issue you raised, the Institutional Economics school encompasses a wide range of approaches. Although all of them recognise that history and institutions do matter, some indeed espouse ideas and assumptions from the conventional mainstream (see for instance the neo-institutional approach of Williamson, who, as David, perceives path dependence from a conventional-deterministic point of view). Others, however, are in clear contrast to the mainstream (see Hodgson G, 1988, Economics and Institutions, Polity; Samuels W, 1995, "The present state of institutional economics", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, pp.569-590). Their approach is grounded on the foundations laid down by Thorstein Veblen and John R. Commons rejecting all mainstream economic assumptions (such as methodological individualism, maximising economic behaviour, and static-equilibrium states)

kind regards,

Paschalis Arvanitidis
University of Aberdeen, Scotland

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: a. yalcintas
  To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:28 PM
  Subject: BHA: path dependence - thanks!


  Dear list members,

  I would really want to send to you my regards for your kind interest in the question I have raised about path dependence, especially to Dick Moodey,
  Paschalis and Marsh Feldman. I would say these references are totally helpful in getting into the literature on 'historical economics'. However I still have some personal doubts about historical economists' "critical" stand in social theory, as Ben Fine quite fairly points out. See that some of the references you have mentioned belong to a conventionalist interpretation of doing economics science. And yet, I would say, the literature on path dependence does not completely depend on 'mainstream' presumptions (see for instance Tony Lawson's chapter on PD in his book Economics and Reality), although many of them really do (such as evolutionary game theorists widely and successfully scrutinised in Jack Vromen's Economic Evolution: London, Routledge, 1995). I am not sure of my self to open a discussing on this issue via the email list; however, I would appreciate any perspective or comment on the subject.

  Friendly,

  Altug

HTML VERSION:

Dear Altug and all,
 
First, I would like to point out that my understanding of the contribution of CR to social science and economics in particular is a bit different from that of prof. Fine. CR, for me, is neither just a methodological perspective nor an economics paradigm alternative to mainstream economics. It is mainly a philosophical stance which can team up with certain economic traditions (heterodox, e.g. post-Keynesian, institutionalist, etc) that are compatible with its bases, to provide an integrated framework for analysing and understanding economic and wider social phenomena.
 
Second, and in regard to the issue you raised, the Institutional Economics school encompasses a wide range of approaches. Although all of them recognise that history and institutions do matter, some indeed espouse ideas and assumptions from the conventional mainstream (see for instance the neo-institutional approach of Williamson, who, as David, perceives path dependence from a conventional-deterministic point of view). Others, however, are in clear contrast to the mainstream (see Hodgson G, 1988, Economics and Institutions, Polity; Samuels W, 1995, "The present state of institutional economics", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, pp.569-590). Their approach is grounded on the foundations laid down by Thorstein Veblen and John R. Commons rejecting all mainstream economic assumptions (such as methodological individualism, maximising economic behaviour, and static-equilibrium states)
 
kind regards,
 
Paschalis Arvanitidis
University of Aberdeen, Scotland
 
----- Original Message -----
From: a. yalcintas
To: bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 11:28 PM
Subject: BHA: path dependence - thanks!

Dear list members,
 
I would really want to send to you my regards for your kind interest in the question I have raised about path dependence, especially to Dick Moodey,
Paschalis and Marsh Feldman. I would say these references are totally helpful in getting into the literature on 'historical economics'. However I still have some personal doubts about historical economists' "critical" stand in social theory, as Ben Fine quite fairly points out. See that some of the references you have mentioned belong to a conventionalist interpretation of doing economics science. And yet, I would say, the literature on path dependence does not completely depend on 'mainstream' presumptions (see for instance Tony Lawson's chapter on PD in his book Economics and Reality), although many of them really do (such as evolutionary game theorists widely and successfully scrutinised in Jack Vromen's Economic Evolution: London, Routledge, 1995). I am not sure of my self to open a discussing on this issue via the email list; however, I would appreciate any perspective or comment on the subject.
 
Friendly,
 
Altug
--- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005