Open and closed systems and the Cambridge School
In recent years a group of researchers at Cambridge (UK) have (re)introduced conceptions of open and closed systems into economics. In doing so they have employed these categories in ways that, in my assessment, both facilitate a significant critique of current disciplinary practices and also point to more fruitful ways of proceeding. In an issue of this journal, Andrew Mearman has advanced three criticisms of the Cambridge position which, if valid, would seriously undermine this assessment. Below I defend the Cambridge position against Mearman's criticisms.
Volume (Year): 64 (2006)
Issue (Month): 4 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRSE20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RRSE20|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Tony Lawson, 2003. "Ontology and Feminist Theorizing," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 119-150.
- Tony Lawson, 1999. "Feminism, Realism, and Universalism," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(2), pages 25-59.
- Tony Lawson, 2006. "The nature of heterodox economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 483-505, July.
- Sheila C. Dow, 1999. "Post Keynesianism and Critical Realism: What Is the Connection?," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 22(1), pages 15-33, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:64:y:2006:i:4:p:493-514. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.