Response To Three Reviews

We are very appreciative of the thoughtful reviews by these three distinguished scholars. RESPONSE TO ENRICO MARCELLI Marcelli provides a very clear summary of our entire book, far better than any other we have seen. He particularly concentrates on the last few chapters in which we try to synthesize the different aspects of evolution into one complex process. His summary leaves little to be added on the main points of the book. Then Marcelli does something unique, unexpected and extremely useful. He argues that our set of tools can be applied in various fields far from our own expertise. He then proceeds to apply our tools to the field of urban economics. Urban economics includes all of the problems of the urban areas from transport to pollution, plus the class, racial, and gender aspects of each of these problems. Marcelli shows, in ways we had never considered, exactly how an evolutionary approach is very useful in researching and understanding this field. RESPONSE TO JOHN B. FOSTER Foster begins with a summary of all of Veblen's criticisms of pre-evolutionary mainstream economics and the evolutionary alternative proposed by Veblen. Foster does not spell out Marx's attack on the pre-evolutionary economics of his day as well as Marx's support for the new Darwinian theory of evolution and his application of evolution to economics -- but the best place to find this discussion of Marx is in Foster's new book, Marx's Ecology (2000). Foster then discusses our contributions to a fruitful synthesis of Marxist and institutionalist thought on evolution. Foster's criticism is that we do not apply this powerful weapon to a detailed critique of the pre- and anti-evolutionary mainstream economics of today, as Veblen and Marx did in their day. The criticism is correct in that we did not intend to do such a detailed criticism. In the first place, both of us have spent many pages, even whole articles, criticizing both neoclassical economics and sociobiology. We felt that readers in the heterodox tradition might be tired of lengthy denunciations that do not add to a positive understanding of evolution. And new readers from outside our traditions might be confused and/or bored to death. Thus, we decided to get away from the denunciation game and write a positive explanation of the general principles and mechanisms of a living and viable evolutionary economics. We were motivated by the goal of defining and explaining this often vague concept of social evolution. We are very pleased that Foster says we succeeded in that quest. We and others will use this framework for more incisive critiques of neoclassical economics in the future. We also hope our approach will be applied in other, specific fields of economics -- and this was done in the next review. We were also motivated by the goal of creating a fruitful synthesis of the two evolutionary paradigms -- Marxism and institutionalism. We are very pleased that Foster found that we were successful here, as well, perhaps our book will help others to find that two heads are better than one, particularly when the heads are those of Marx and Veblen. RESPONSE TO JOHN HENRY In his opening paragraph, John Henry stated that he liked our book in general and recommended it as a heterodox textbook, for which we are grateful. But he said that he was going to confront the details of two chapters with critical questions in order to provoke a controversial and interesting discussion. He certainly achieved his goal. First, he claims that Dugger and Sherman say that myths cause inequality. He argues that this is incorrect because there must be inequality before the myths are formed to support it. For example, racism arises out of slavery and then supports it. We agree that myths such as racism grow out of institutions such as slavery, then support them

Applied economics · Class (philosophy · Darwinism · Economics · Epistemology · Evolutionary Economics · Field (mathematics · Mainstream · Mainstream economics · Marxist philosophy · Neoclassical economics · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Set (abstract data type · Social science · Sociology · Spell · Veblen good · Anthropology · Computer Science · Economic theories and models · Economic Theory and Institutions · Law · Philosophy

• Marx’s Ecology

  Howard J Sherman•Journal of Economic Issues•2001

  Add to list