Just a point, and I don't think it's minor or just semantic. There is no Marxian political economy. There is no Marxist political economy. Marxism begins with a contribution to the end of political economy.
-----Original Message----- >From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Jun 1, 2007 4:17 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [PEN-L] Gintis & GT [was: PEN-L Digest - 30 May 2007...7] > >me: >> The institutionalist approach (of which Marxian political economy is a >> type) does transcend that methodological individualism. It says that >> not only do people make the world (including its institutions), but >> those institutions substantially make the people, i.e., their tastes, >> social values, and expectations. NC economics notes the first and >> ignores the second. As far as I know, game theory is the same way. I'm >> sure somebody will correct me if game theory has actually introduced >> endogenous tastes into their models. > >Ann Li: >> I don't disagree with Jim's position esp. the competitive fringe surrounding >> NC econ's disciplinary dominance, < > >yay! ;-) > >> but wouldn't cooperative assumptions in traditional GT [game theory] or some >> of the decision approaches to behavioral GT and/or even evolutionary GT >> (esp. as they might apply to social network analysis) include or at least be >> responsive to the second, ideological consequence of institutional >> determination?< > >I'd like to know if GT involves the endogenous determination of >individual tastes, etc. I know that the experimental/behavioral >economists that I know (and there are three in my department) do not >deal with endogenous taste-determination in a serious way. It's all >very individualistic. > > > Or is that a step down the Roemerian road?< > >the last time I read Roemer, he followed the NC dogma of taking >tastes, etc. as given by god or genes. >-- >Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your >own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
