3 ms·
Right, but are there _actual_ contributions to economics or the history of economics that were consequences of his “stimulation”? Also, saying that he single-h
by LudwigNagasena 3y ago
Right, but are there _actual_ contributions to economics or the history of economics that were consequences of his “stimulation”?
Also, saying that he single-handedly prompted “economists and historians alike to incorporate broader socio-cultural understandings into their analyses” is a huge denigration of institutional economics, behavioural economics, Austrian economics, social economics, etc.
- weatherlight 3y agoIt's a relatively recent addition to the discorse, having been published just over a decade ago. It's definitely apart of the heterodox tradition in economics (without diminishing what's already there), which often takes longer to be integrated into the mainstream. So, I guess time will tell?
- LudwigNagasena 3y agoI would even take any contribution to heterodox economics. But what was actually contributed?
- weatherlight 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology#Barter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_anthropology#Barter