DUMP THE LABLES AND DEBATE THE THEORY AND EMPIRICS ON THEIR MERITS
writes Alan Taylor on May 27. LETS DO IT.
The private exchanges between Alan and me are friendlier and more
constructive than the public ones. I wonder why? I'll try some of the same
for the public good as well.
In Alan's second paragraph asks a lot of specific questions and so does
another one about half way through.
Whether we have answers to them, I dont know, and even less if this is
the time and place to seek and offer concrete answers to these concrete
questions, but see below.
For present purposes, it seems more fruitful to me first to address what I
hope Alan and others will agree is the theoretical or at least analytical
MAIN ISSUE that Alan poses:
"Frank wants it both ways: sometimes a single market [A],
sometimes many [B]"
where
[A] Eurasia was one big competitive market
- actually i would amend that to the WORLD market [that is why the ec-hist
including Alan's May 28 'editorial' separation of question #4 about
colonial exploitation and # 3 about Eurasian trade and market is NOT
acceptable - and I sent them a 'private' not critiquing their editorial
re-phrasing, which the ec-hist 'owners' can post if they wish]
and
[B] more segmented markets .
Alan then asks, "Is Frank proposing [a] or [b] or something in between
[c] or somemthing else [d]" ?
"You can't have it both ways" [a] & [b], and presumably still less also
[c] and [d] to boot.
MY ANSWER: Not only CAN I/we have it both ways, we MUST, because that is
what the REAL world was and still is like.
I grant you that I am not an expert on segmented market analysis, eg David
Gordon et al's segmented labor markets. But surely having ONE WORLD MARKET
and observing that it is ALSO SEGMENTED is not only possible but
altogether realistic, and therefore necessary, Alan Taylor to the contrary
notwithstanding. Indeed, that is what economic analysis is - or
should be - all about, for if the real world really were one homogeneous
perfectly competitive self-equilibrating general equilibrium, there would
not be much left to analyze - nor to remedy!
That obliterates Alan's MAIN analytical/substantive critique and converts
it into his own weakness [and als that of his econ-hist co-editors] and
into the strength at least potentially in the future of the segmented
whole analysis of that time and place and process that Ken Pomeranz and I
are pursuing.
Only by way of example, I return to some of Alan's above
metioned introductory and midway questions:
- which variables are endogenous and which exogenous?
to what process where? [i know that he is asking to what 'model' and not
to what reality]. Well it depends. but one thing is sure: if segmented
markets are part and parcel of a single global one, then whatever may seem
'exogenous' to the segment may well be endogenous to the whole - really!
so it behoves us to construct a 'model' that can accomadoate the same.
-supply versus demand for money. I actually devote a whole chapter 3 to
that "Money Went Around the World and Made the World Go Round" - and
on your demand, I supply an analysis of why, how, how much, and to what
effect, which pulls the rug out from under that monetary authority
Charles Kindleberger's still recent myths about 'spenders and hoarders'
- exogeneity or endogeneity of population growth? Good question!
in my 'model' it is partly one and partly the other. that is a major
weakness of my model - so far. But Landes' procedure of totally excluding
population growth from his 'model' theory certainly is NO help, as McNeil
already observed. In my analysis, I dont know about 'model', population
growth rates are regionally segmented/differentiated as part of a single
world wide process, not only of population growth but of economic growth.
My 'model' is neither Matlthusian nor Boserupian, but a synthesis of
both, but i hope a better and more realistic synthesis than that of
Ronald Lee, whom i consulted privately alas without much result.
-what drives technology? well, in part population growth - and vice
versa! - and which endowments matter (labor,land,capital, skills ....)?
well, ALL of them, and reciprocally with population growth, both globally
and regionally/sectorally - and they matter in different ways in different
'segments' of the whole! also for what drives technology. How? That is
the question my dear Watson Taylor. We would all be grateful if you or
David Landes could give us a clue.
- deterministically or probabilistically, what are the shocks, random or
otherwise and who do intial conditions and dynamics translate into final
outcomes? Good question/s. Thats what we are trying to figure out. One
thing is sure: we never will by following "at least Landes' theory
[that] can be stated in brief and coherent terms." That is exactly why we
are trying to construct one or more alternative ones.
-"There are many other gaps in economic logic along the way" - maybe,
nobody is perfect. But so far, there are many more gaps in economic DATA/
INFORMATION along the way. Why? Because economists and historians have
not even troubled themselves to try to dig them up or even to estimate
them. Why Not? At least in large part because of THEIR OWN GAPS in
their own 'economic logic,' which are as deplorable as they are large:
Ken and I are applying 'the economic logic' of demand/supply analysis
to segmented factor prices [yes of the factors Taylor named above]
including ecologically and demographically derived ones and the
corresponding alternative costs and benefits segmentally and globally.
We would now have a lot more data at our disposal if Messsrs Taylor and
Co. had not been ILlogically looking only at each or at most some
individual trees while wandering lost in the global forest, that they cant
even see,or like Patrick O'Brien still in 1997 (Journal of World History]
outright denying that there was any before 1846. Now what kind of
'economic logic" is that? And dont tell me that thius is 'only' rhetoric,
unless you mean not mine but that of 'economists'.
Alan writes "I personally don't see how any economist is going to be
persuaded as yet" No doubt, Alan, you are right about that. But how much
is that a function of that "I don't see the evidence
of Frank's coherent theory yet" and how much is it a function of
'economists' congenital myopia and blindness, indeed refusal even to apply
their own logic world wide? I already told you that when he was still my
professor [woe was to both of us] your Hoover Institution colleague
Uncle Milt told me [for God's sake or at least for that of my grade in
his class and my subsequent career] NOT to read beyond chapter 3 in
Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. But I did anyway, and i learned
something, including how not to have a career as an economist. Small loss,
as is their persuasion. For his troubles, Uncle Milt got a Nobel Prize,
but not for Peace! I got plenty of nothing, to each his own.
Which finaly brings me to another matter in Alan's same May 27 posting.
I already asked him privately by 'virtue' of what evidence if
any he inweighs against dependence theory [and alas me personally-
see below] with "locically inconsistent and empirically useless theory,
misreading of history, and a distraction for policymakers and scholars
alike, with enourmous costs"?
I would counsel us all to leave that question aside publicly here and now
for at least four good reasons:
1. the issue bere is supposeldly another, but
2. if Alan has [what?] evidence to support his view on what is not at
issue here, i can marshall quite a lot to support the other side.
3, other 'theories' have also generated 'enourmous costs' - we can see
some of the costs of the IMF theories and policy makers in Indonesia right
now. I wrote a book entitled ECONOMIC GENOCIDE; EQUIBRIUM ON THE POINT OF
A BAYONET about some of the costs of Alan Taylor's Hoover Institution
colleage Milton Friedman's monetarism in Chile to which I can testify
from personal experience. Alas the cost were not limited to that country
but have been just about world-wide.
4. If that sounds like assigning 'guilt by association' it is my quite
deliberate turning of the tables on Alan to help show him that this kind
of if-communists-say-milk-is-good-for-babies-it-must-be-bad argumement is
less than constructive in "rightly going to place a high premium on
getting a coherent theory from Frank given this background"
Can we now go back to DEBATE THE THEORY AND EMPIRICS ON THEIR MERITS?
PLEASE!
cheers
gunder frank
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andre Gunder Frank
University of Toronto
96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616
Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071
CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca
My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~