> Dear Colleague,
> 
> Below and in attachments are various things that may be of interest to you.  If you have already received some of the information, my apologies, but others on my e-mail lists may not have.
> 
> Fred Lee
> 
> The FIRST is to remind you of two upcoming conferences.  The first is the ICAPE Conference on the "Future of Heterodox Economics" which will take place at UMKC, Kansas City, Mo. on June 5-7, 2003.  For more info go to http://www.icape.org.  More up-to-date info will be sent out shortly.  The second conference is the Association for Heterodox Economics 2003 Conference to held at Nottingham Trent University on July 8-9, 2003.  More information can be found at http://www.hetecon.com.
> 
> *******************************************************
> 
> SECONDLY, the Association for Social Economics has completely revised its web page at http://www.socialeconomics.org.  Go check it out.  Moreover, the Association of Heterodox Economics has revised its web site which now includes the provisional programme for the 2003 conference, directory of heterodox economists and their research interests (good for students looking for heterodox economists to study with), a paper on the history and future of AHE, information on the AHE workshops on Advanced Research Methods for post-graduate students as well as other info.
> 
> ********************************************************
> 
> THIRDLY is a JOB Advert--two positions at Drew University.  Drew is quite friendly towards heterodox economists.  So tell your graduate students about it.
> 
> Please address all questions to Donald Cole at [log in to unmask]
> 
> Drew University has two full-time, non-tenure track positions open for
> the 2003-2004 academic year. One is a position teaching macroeconomics.
> The economist filling this position would be expected to teach
> introductory and intermediate macroeconomics and money and banking
> during the academic year. The other position is in microeconomics. The
> economist filling this position would be expected to teach introductory
> and intermediate microeconomics and two courses in applied economics
> (one of which could be an introductory econometrics course). In addition
> to these full-time positions, we are looking for economists to teach two
> other courses in the fall semester: public finance and corporate
> finance. All candidates must have a Ph.D. in economics and university
> level teaching experience. Candidates should submit their vita and three
> letters of reference to Prof. Donald Cole, Chair, Department of
> Economics, Drew University, 36 Madison Avenue, Madison, New Jersey 07940
> or to [log in to unmask] The review of applications will begin May 1st and
> continue until the positions are filled.  Drew is an affirmative
> action-equal opportunity employer.
> 
> ********************************************************
> 
> FOURTHLY is CALL FOR PAPERS:
> 
> 1.     Mieke Meurs--URPE call for papers for the ASSA meetings
> in San Diego, Jan. 3-5, 2004.  Note that the days this coming year are
> Sat-Monday. The deadline for submissions is again June 1 so that URPE can be
> represented on the ASSA website.  See attachment for more information.
> 
> 2.    There will be a call for papers by the Rethinking Social Democracy collective.  The collective is sponsoring 3 interdisciplinary and comparative conferences, one of which will be "Keynesian, Post-Keynesian and Noe-Keynesian Political Economy".  For further information see the attachment below.
> 
> 3.    Shortly Howard Sherman will be sending out a call for papers on the history of radical (heterodox) economics to be published in a forthcomin issue of RRPE.  Look out for the call for papers and get your topics ready.
> 
> ***************************************************
> 
> FIFTH is an advert for the 79th issue of Capital and Class and a membership form for the Conference of Socialist Economists--both attachments.  In the issue of C&C there is an article by Peter Clarke and Andrew Mearman on "Why Marxist economics s> hould be taught but probably won't be!" which is very good.  For anybody interested in issues of teaching and especially teaching heterodox material this is a very good article to read.  You might also want to consider joining CSE as well.
> 
> ****************************************************
> 
> SIXTH is info about two new books.  The first book is MODERN THEORIES OF MONEY edited by Louis-Philippe Rochon.  The advert of the book is attached below.  One of the articles in the book is "Keynes and the Classics--Notes on the Monetary Theory of Production" by Heinrich Bortis.  I found the article outstanding (even though I disagree with parts of it) in its attempt to bring together Classical/Sraffian and Post Keynesian theory together.  The article itself is worth the entire price of the book.  A second book is THE STATE, THE MARKET, AND THE EURO: CHARTALISM VERSUS METALLISM IN THE THEORY OF MONEY edited by Stephanie A. Bell and Edward Nell, Edward Elgar, 2003.
> Contents:
> Preface
> Stephanie A. Bell and Edward J. Nell
>       The two concepts of money: Implications for the analysis of optimal currency areas 
> Charles A. E. Goodhart
>       Mr Goodhart and the EMU 
> Perry Mehrling
>       The creditary/monetarist debate in historical perspective 
> Michael Hudson
>       Some limitations of the Chartalist perspective: A comment on > '> The two concepts of money> '>  
> Eric Helleiner
>       The neo-Chartalist approach to money 
> L. Randall Wray
>       Nominal money, real money, and stabilization 
> Edward J. Nell
>       Money as a social institution: A heterodox view of the euro 
> Robert Guttmann
>       Neglected costs of monetary union: The loss of sovereignty in the sphere of public policy 
> Stephanie A. Bell
>       A reply to the contributors 
> Charles A. E. Goodhart
> 
> ***********************************************
> 
> SEVENTH is a review of a conference on Trade which recently took place at New School.  Below is a review of the conference by Paul A(?)
> 
> On Friday the New School/Cepa held a conference on Trade focusing on 
> heterodox approaches.  It may well prove a landmark conference.  The New 
> School and Prof. Shaikh did a true service to the academic and policy 
> community.
> 
> We were told many of the papers will soon be available 
> at 
> <http://www.newschool.edu/cepa/events/globmyths03.htm>http://www.newschool.edu/cepa/ 
> and ultimately published as a book.  From what I have seen they will be 
> well worth going through.  It is worth noting that the conference had 
> several hundred largely academic and policy professional participants in a 
> packed auditorium (although I think it was not heavily promoted).
> 
> A few themes (my own subjective re-ordering and emphasis).
> 
>    How deep a criticism of trade theory and how strong need be corrective 
> measures?
> 
>          A)  Lance Taylor synthesized empirical work (14 country case 
> studies) and emphasized capital account liberalization as "more grievous" a 
> policy error than the trade account liberalizations (explicitly echoing 
> Stiglitz) with capital account liberalizations consistently contributing to 
> instability and crisis.  Nonetheless he did cite trade liberalization as 
> creating problems with effective demand, productivity and income 
> distribution in some cases.
> 
>                In perhaps a similar vein, Tom Palley gave a lucid 
> powerpoint critique of neoclassical trade theory from a Post-Keynesian 
> perspective.  He pointed out the limitations of critiques within the n/c 
> tradition that use special cases such as dynamic advantage (infant 
> industry), changing patterns of demand, surplus labor/loser compensation 
> issues.  Rather he felt that issues such as hysterisis (path dependency, 
> 'history matters'), price stickiness, and startup costs were more decisive.
> 
>          B)  John Weeks' paper, also started from an empirical perspective 
> (Latin America) but added foreign direct investment liberalization to > 
> Taylor's 'no-no' list of capital liberalization. Perhaps more importantly, 
> he also emphasized evidence that a pro-trade liberalization policy may 
> actually enhance 'crowding out' of the domestic economy by the external 
> sector - i.e. liberalization and trade promotion have structurally weakened 
> national economies in Latin America through changes that are deeper than 
> just inadequate effective demand.  Interestingly, in the discussion period, 
> Weeks also spoke to the 1979/1980 Shaikh paper on trade theory (the one 
> discussed on Pen-l last week) as absolutely seminal.
> 
>          In a similar vein Ajit Singh presented a review of recent 
> empirical and theoretical work to show that not just short term financial 
> account liberalization would be hurtful but that unselective FDI and long 
> term account liberalization would also have poor results.  In addition to 
> financial fragility, industrial policy (technology transfer, spillover 
> effects) and development policy mitigated against capital account 
> liberalization.  In the discussion, Singh also stressed selective, managed 
> trade; he also contrasted the UK industrial sector experience with the US 
> attributing the latter to unique benefits from trade with the 3rd world.
> 
>             Anwar Shaikh set out to debunk the myth that free trade as 
> automatically produces mutual benefits (subject to proper market 
> functioning).  Historically and today all standard trade theory (including 
> Hecksher-Ohlin-Samuelson) rests on a theory of comparative costs (which 
> leads to comparative advantage).  These versions of free trade theory rely 
> on equilibrating price mechanisms (from quantity theory of money to 
> exchange rates) to move trade from a situation of an absolute advantage to 
> the stronger (lower cost producer) to a situation where both parties 
> benefit.  Shaikh shows these mechanisms not to work - ultimately selling 
> costs remain linked to production costs.  Therefore, under "free" 
> trade  there will be 'absolute advantage' - i.e. those who start off with 
> initial advantages retain and strengthen those advantages while the weaker 
> have these deficiencies further reinforced.  Distinctive to this approach 
> is that the shortcomings of "free trade" are is inherent in the process of 
> competition, domestic or international - not a consequence of more narrow 
> market failures.  Just as "free trade inherently leads to increased 
> concentration and centralization; trade inherently requires strategic 
> selectivity and management if the weaker party is to benefit.  Shaikh then 
> gives an historical overview of actual trade policies and practices to show 
> that countries have intuitively or consciously understood their interests 
> were more along these lines.
> 
> There were also papers on trade and: profit rates, gender, labor markets, 
> statistics, and historical theory and practice.
> 
> Once again I think we owe a "debt" of gratitude (sorry) to our New School 
> colleagues for a job well done.  The forthcoming book will be worth looking 
> for.
> 
> 
> 
> >  <<EE_Marketing_Leaflet.pdf>> > >  <<C&C79.pdf>> > >  <<join_cse.pdf>> > >  <<urpe.call.03.doc>> > >  <<rethinking.doc>>