There is this neither/nor world where people of opposing political views might claim her. I'd summarize it as between the market and the central government or national state there are forms of cooperation not limited by the strictures of individualized rational choice. Her point of departure is the wrongness -- or incompleteness -- of the "tragedy of the commons" framework.
Bowles writes about this stuff in his Microeconomics treatise, a book I had a hard time plowing into. (Never got through it, but if I was teaching micro that would be where I started. My impression is that the AU people are into this in a big way.) On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Michael Perelman <[email protected]> wrote: > Reading her work, I would have thought so, but I recall that more > recently her work was associated with libertarian thought. > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:29:37AM -0400, Max B. Sawicky wrote: >> I heard her speak once in the 80s, in a small meeting at the >> Advisory Commission for Intergovernmental Relations (my old >> Federalism gig). >> >> She said her views aligned with the New Left, by which I think >> she must have meant the early decentralist vintage. >> > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > michaelperelman.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
