After Davidson, who needs the Austrians? Reply to Davidson
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7276433 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David L Prychitko (State University of New York at Oswego, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1993 |
| Volume | 7 |
| Issue | 2-3 |
| Pages | 371-380 |
| Publication date | 1993-03-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Critical Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0891-3811 • E-ISSN: 1933-8007 |
| Publisher | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/08913819308443305 |
| OpenAlex | W1987875018 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 13 |
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 nonergo‐dic 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
Austrian School · Capitalism · Economics · Epistemology · Great recession · Indeterminacy (philosophy · Keynesian economics · Neoclassical economics · Political science · Positive economics · Shackle · Sociology · Subjectivism · Economic theories and models · Economic Theory and Institutions · Economic Theory and Policy · Law · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.07 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 1997 - 2001 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |