AFTER DAVIDSON, WHO NEEDS THE AUSTRIANS - REPLY TO DAVIDSON

被引：3
作者：
PRYCHITKO, DL
机构：
[1] Department of Economics, SUNY-Oswego, Oswego
来源：
CRITICAL REVIEW | 1993年 / 7卷 / 2-3期
关键词：
D O I：
10.1080/08913819308443305
中图分类号：
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号：
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要：
Paul Davidson asserts that Post Keynesians could fare just as well without insights from their Austrian colleagues. He's wrong. Radical subjectivists within both schools of thought have something to gain through dialogue, as evidenced by the efforts of Kenneth Boulding, G.L.S. Shackle, and Ludwig Lachmann. Many Austrian and Post Keynesian economists share a common methodological principle of radical subjectivism, which emphasizes nonergodic constructs and systems indeterminacy, and each school can gain from the insights of the other when asking such questions as why capitalism generates recessions and depressions and why capitalism generates any degree of order at all.
引用
收藏
页码：371 / 380
页数：10
相关论文
共 29 条
  • [21] LACHMANN LM, 1976, J ECON LIT, V14, P54
  • [22] Lachmann LM., 1976, FDN MODERN AUSTR EC, P126
  • [23] LEIJONHUFBVUD A, 1981, INFORMATION COORDINA, P291
  • [24] LOASBY BJ, METHOD PROCESS AUSTR, P111
  • [25] PRYCHITKO DL, 1988, CRIT REV, V2, P220
  • [26] Shackle G.L., 1972, EPISTEMICS EC
  • [27] Shackle G. L. S., 1983, AUSTRIAN EC NEWSLETT, V4, p[1, 5]
  • [28] TORR C, SUBJECTIVISM INTELLI, P295
  • [29] VONMISES L, 1963, HUMAN ACTION, P244
123