Alas, whatever the postings by de Nowell and Kohler may say about or for
PKT, they reflect almost total ignorance and/or far toooo much
misrepresentation of World System Theory and analysis. Without tooting
anybody's horn, I am prepared to compare the theoretical, analytic,
epirical AND predictive track record of any ONE of "us", eg. Amin [who
received a polite nod], Arrighi [if he would admit to SW membership],
Wallerstein, Chase-Dunn, and in my humble opinion Gunder Frank - and
others - to any and all PKT put together, and I will bet dollars to
donoughts that we will win hands down on the USA, Western Europe, Japan,
"the West", Eastern Europe, the ex-Soviet Union and its successors, China,
and the "Third World" individually or taken together, not to mention the
world as a whole. That there are gaps, if not vacuums, for PKT or any
other theory/analysis to fill is nopt disputed or disputable, but that
PKT, or KT, or mainstram economic analysis and forecasting can even begin
to hold a candle to WST's PROVEN track record, is to put it mildly just
LUDICROUS. I am willing to put up against any and all of these even just
my own CRISIS;IN THE WORLD ECONOMY and CRISIS;IN THE THIRD WORLD [1980],
or LONG LIVE TRANS-IDEOLOGICAL ENTERPRISE! in the SOVIET UNION etc [1977]
or THE EUROPEAN CHALLENGE ... TO PAN-EUROPEAN ENTENTE [1983],
or IS THE REAGAN RECOVERY REAL OR THE CALM BEFORE THE STROM? [1986]
or "The Perils of Economic Ramboism: The NExt Recession Threatens Deflation
and Depression" [in URPE - THE IMPERILED ECONOMY 1987],
or "American Roulette in thge Globonomic Casino" [C1991],
or "A World Economic Interpretation of Politics in East-West Europe"
[UNESCO JOURNAL 1992]
or THE THIRDWORLDIZATION OF RUSSIA AND EATERN EUROPE
While PKT may have done a bit better than KT and other "received" econ
theory/analysis, what I published and empirically demonstrated two decades
ago still remains true today:
EQUATING ECONOMIC FORECASTING TO ASTROLOGY IS AN INSULT - TO ASTROLOGERS
[1978]
Respectfully submitted - nto the test of the historical and contemporary
evidence!
Gunder Frank
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Bruce R. McFarling wrote:
> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:44:39 +1100
> From: "Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: Keynesianism and the Theory of the State
>
> Regarding the query regarding potentials for theoretical
> interaction between WST and post Keynesian economics, two participants in
> the post keynesian thought discussion list (PKT) writes as follows. Any
> response to pass back to PKT (keeping in mind that I am hoping not to
> start a cross-list flame war)?
>
> Virtually,
>
> Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
> ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:55:18 -0500 (EST)
> From: Gernot Kohler <gernot.kohler@sheridanc.on.ca>
> To: pkt@csf.colorado.edu
> Cc: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT <pkt@csf.colorado.edu>
> Subject: Re: Keynesianism and the Theory of the State
> Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.970124094200.30456A-100000@atlas.sheridanc.on.ca>
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 1997, Gregoire de Nowell (ci-devant) wrote:
> ......>
> >
> > World systems theory, on the other hand, is
> > "irrelevant" (in terms of everyday discourse) for
> > several reasons. First, it grounds its analysis of
> > economic behavior on observations of state behavior
> > and class relations which, while compelling in the
> > long run, are not amenable to quantification or
> > prediction. Second, to engage the arena of
> .......>
>
> Along the same line, the world system school
> uses a range of methodologies which is very much
> tilted toward historiographic and sociological
> methods and weak on quantification as common in
> economics. Secondly, that school is strong on
> critical thinking (good) but weak on constructive
> proposals (bad) -- e.g., what incomes policy?
> what investment policy? what monetary policy?
> what exchange rate system? etc.
> (Samir Amin seems to be the major exception,
> with his concept of a "polycentric world",
> which, if translated into Post Keynesian terms,
> is something like "regional Keynesianisms",
> e.g. Europe as a regional Keynesianism,
> NAFTA as a regional Keynesianism, etc.)
>
> There appears to be plenty of room for
> Post Keynesians to fill their ideas into the vacuum.
>
> Regards,
> Gernot Kohler
> Oakville, Canada
>
>