[URPE] Fwd: Inquiry

[Julio Huato]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julio Huato <juliohuato at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Inquiry
To: urpe-moderator at lists.econ.utah.edu


I got this inquiry at the URPE blog email address from a comrade in
Australia who wishes to remain anonymous.  He is able to read your
replies on the listserv.

*  *  *

After a number of years enjoying your excellent website, recently
joining your Facebook page and regularly reading RRPE, I would like to
seek your advice on a particular issue relating to my research. I am
planning to write my thesis on the signifiance of innovation in
reproducing the institutional foundations of Australian capitalism
from a broadly radical-institutionalist perspective. One aspect of my
thesis involves a critical analysis of why innovation is perceived as
being significant within different schools of thought and I am thus in
the process of analysing a wide range of perspectives from the history
of economic thought. However, from my literature search thus far,
there is one area that seems to have escaped critical analysis from
radical scholars: that of the evolutionary/neo-Schunpeterian
approaches to innovation and development. A number of critiques have
been produced from within the school of thought that deal with very
marginal concerns (e.g. Is the evolution Darwinian or Lamarkian?'), or
which deal with very abstract issues in the theory.

I am very interested in offering a critical appraisal of the
Evolutionary/NSE approaches, but am quite stunned that so little has
been offered in the way of radical critique, examining issues such as
the ideological assumptions underpinning such work, the emphasis
placed on markets and actors, conception of competition, the
relatively benign role attributed to capitalism, lack of analysis of
innovation as a political/social issue but only a tecnical matter at
the firm level in repsonse to competitive pressures, self-organising
tendencies, etc.

Has anything like this been published in the RRPE or any similar
publications that you are aware of? Has anyone in URPE have any
particular views on this matter?

 I am sorry to bother you with this matter, however I am concerned
that I am missing something important in the extant literature and
would therefore like to seek your advice. I would be most grateful for
any assitance you could offer in this matter.

Sincerely