Asymmetrical Information

Any relationship to Ken?

You could always email her and ask, or email the conference it was presented at.

What language is this?

What language is this?

The abstract leads to her website, from there you can look at her publications, where you find this:
"Reading The Economist on Globalisation: Knowledge, Identity, and Power" [presented at the conference on "Cultural Returns: Assessing the Place of Culture in Social Thought," St. Hugh's College, Oxford, September 2002]. Revised Feb. 2003.
Or you could follow Chris C's advice and just email her for a copy.

From the conference website, it would appear that the language is a variant of post-modernese, and makes ample use of the word "heterodox".

The conference is hosted by ICAPE, which seems to advocate that there is not enough diversity in economic thought, and, apparently, that this might be remedied if economics used less math and more big words, especially "heterodox".

Feel free to correct me...I am not an expert in this field, and feel that the field of economics uses quite enough big words as it is. I have also reached my late thirties without ever before using the word "heterodox". I like to say it, though.

Heterodox! heterodox! heterodox!

I suspect our Jane is going to have some snarky fun with Martha Starr and the ICAPE...

Um, are you actually planning to read this paper?

I mean, I'm willing to trudge through a column's worth of dreck (no offense intended, Mindles) to get a few cheap laughs off, but a whole paper in this vein? Your dedication becomes you.

That's Brenda's little sister, isn't it?

My, how she's grown.

/f

I really don't understand why it's still considered funny to pretend not to understand perfectly simple ideas because they come from modern languages academics. The abstract linked actually makes a lot of sense as an explanation of why people read the Economist. The jargon isn't even particularly irritating.

1994 called; they want their "Postmodernism" column back.

"1994 called; they want their 'Postmodernism' column back."

"Revised Feb. 2003"

...and yet they keep printing this stuff. I'm sure people will stop making fun of postmodernism when it stops being funny.

"using arguments in which logic, rationality, and basic economic theory figure prominently..."

As opposed to using arguments in which "illogic, irrationality and unsupported or unsubstantiated economic theory figure prominently" perhaps?

In context, I think Dr. Starr means that the *words* "logic", "rationality" and "basic economic theory" appear often, as they in fact do in the Economist, often in support of some startlingly illogical and irrational conclusions.

Are you reneging on your offer?

You said you'd send them a lollipop, and now instead you're going to only give them a (far inferior) lollypop...

[Your friendly neighborhood spell checquer]

D-squared wrote:

'In context, I think Dr. Starr means that the *words* "logic", "rationality" and "basic economic theory" appear often, as they in fact do in the Economist, often in support of some startlingly illogical and irrational conclusions.'

What he said; something common to libertarian discourse, BTW.

Also, to the twats like PaulD making fun of Dr. Starr as some kind of Po-Mo; she's an economist, and worked for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as a stats-cruncher.

(However, she does come from the socialist hell of Canada)

this point has been made before in another discussion, but many of you might like to read work done by mirowski, amariglio, and others on the actual underpinnings of the eco theory many of you accept as "rational" and "truth." in that context, starr's abstract shows a very nicely NUANCED understanding of the subject.

Comments are Closed.