Posts
Pier Luigi Porta reports that there is currently a lively debate on the legacy of Piero Sraffa's research and its contribution to modern economics, all this in conjunction with the opening of Sraffa's archives twenty years ago. Sraffa's major work was published half a century ago, and it influence economic thinking back then. But Economics moved on, we found new techniques, models and evidence. What is the purpose of going back to outdated theories? I realize that sometimes you need to take a few steps back when you realize you got into a dead-end, but that does not mean one should worship old science and look for its traces everywhere.
There are, however, circumstances where the history of economic thought is useful. For example, there certainly are some fads in economic research and it would be useful to learn how they emerge. Fads are a waste of time and should be prevented. It can also be useful to understand how some people can lead economic thinking onto a particular path, especially when there are some self-interests attached (and the path turns out to be a dead-end). But this is more about group psychology than hero worship.
Maybe someone can help me understanding why we need this debate about the importance of Sraffa in current economic thinking. I do not see it.
There are, however, circumstances where the history of economic thought is useful. For example, there certainly are some fads in economic research and it would be useful to learn how they emerge. Fads are a waste of time and should be prevented. It can also be useful to understand how some people can lead economic thinking onto a particular path, especially when there are some self-interests attached (and the path turns out to be a dead-end). But this is more about group psychology than hero worship.
Maybe someone can help me understanding why we need this debate about the importance of Sraffa in current economic thinking. I do not see it.
3 comments:
This is frightening: in some parts of continental economics, old professors turn all philosophical and bicker over "he said she said" problems. I don't want to sound irreverent towards the classics, but these exegetical papers seem so dull to me. A similar example are the people who interpret Hayek...
Careful, EL, you're going to feel the full heat of the heterodox blogosphere if you keep this up. Soon you'll find out what Sraffa REALLY meant and how anyone who kept him in high regard predicted the financial crisis and how Steve Keen is the messiah come to save us all.
It will be terrible.
Yes, why should we? By far better to have all of us discussing the next pile of papers about the equity premium puzzle. Can't wait.
Post a Comment