Following materials are from Frederic Lee’s personal collection.
- Alfred S. Eichner, Curriculum Vita, January 1988.
- “Alfred S. Eichner Obituary,” New York Times, Feb. 13, 1988.
- Eichner, A. S. 1968. “Business and the Market Mechanism,” in The Business of America, edited by Ivar Berg, pp. 167-200. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
- Eichner, A. S. 1968. “Public Policy for Growth,” in Manpower Strategy for the Metropolis, edited by Eli Ginzberg and The Conservation of Human Resources Staff, Columbia University, pp. 262-291. New York and London: Columbia University Press.
- Eichner, A. S. 1970. State Development Agencies and Employment Expansion. Policy Papers in Human Resources and Industrial Relations 18. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- Eichner, A. S. 1971. “Monopoly, the Emergency of Oligopoly and the Case of Sugar Refining: A Reply,” Journal of Law and Economics, 14 (October): 521-527.
- Eichner, A. S. 1973. “A Theory of the Determination of the Mark-up under Oligopoly,” Economic Journal, 83 (December): 1184-1200.
- Eichner, A. S. 1973. “Human Resources Planning,” in New York is Very Much Alive: A Manpower View, edited by Eli Gizberg and The Conservation of Human Resources Staff, Columbia University, pp. 247-309. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Eichner, A. S. 1974. “Determination of the Mark-up under Oligopoly: A Comment,” Economic Journal, 84 (December): 967-980.
- Eichner, A. S. 1975. “The Megacorp as a Social Innovation and Business History,” Business and Economic History: Proceedings of Business History Conference, vol. 4: 46-66.
- Eichner, A. S. 1975. “A Theory of the Determination of the Mark-up under Oligopoly: A Further Reply,” Economic Journal, 85 (March): 149-150. (also DeLorme and Rubin’s comment, pp. 148-149).
- Eichner, A. S. 1977. “The Geometry of Macroeconomic Balance,” Australian Economic Papers, 16 (28): 53-71.
- Swann, D. 1977. Review of The Megacorp and Oligopoly by Alfred S. Eichner, Economic Journal, 87 (June): 362-364.
- Marris, R. 1977. Review of The Megacorp and Oligopoly by Alfred S. Eichner, Journal of Economic Literature, 15 (4): 1340-1343.
- Eichner, A. S. 1978. Review of Studies in Pricing by P. W. S. Andrews and Elizabeth Brunner, Journal of Economic Literature, 16 (4): 1436-1438.
- Eichner, A. S. 1979. “‘An Anthropogenic’ Approach to the Labor Market,” Eastern Economic Journal, 5 (3): 349-366.
- Eichner, A. S. 1979. “New Approach on Inflation,” New York Times, July 25.
- Eichner, A. S. 1979. “Stagflation: the Worst of Two Worlds,” New York Times, May 27.
- Eichner, A. S. 1980. “The Post-Keynesian Interpretation of Stagflation: Changing Theory to fit the Reality,” U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Stagflation: The Causes, Effects and Solutions, Special Study on Economic Change, December. Pp. 38-66.
- Forman, L. and A. S. Eichner. 1980. “A Post-Keynesian Short-Period Model: Some Preliminary Econometric Results,” Center for Economic and Anthropogenic Research, SUNY-Purchase, Working Paper No. 4, May.
- Eichner, A. S. 1981. “Expectations in Economics,” U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, Expectations and the Economy, Government Printing Office, December. Pp. 113-118.
- Eichner, A. S. 1982. “The Micro Foundations of the Corporate Economy,” Center for Economic and Anthropogenic Research, Working Paper No. 11. December.
- Eichner, A. S. 1985. “The lack of progress in economics,” Nature 313 (Feb): 427-428; and P. Dasgupta and F. Hahn. 1983. “To the defense of economics,” Nature 317 (October): 589-590.
- Eichner, A. S. 1986. Letter to Nature (on 1985 article)
- Eichner, A. S. 1986. “The lack of progress in economics: Rejoinder.”
- Eichner, A. S. 1987. Instructor’s Manual for Macrodynamics of Advanced Market Economies. Unpublished.
- Eichner A. S. nd. “Monopolistic Practices and Competition.”
- Eichner, A. S. and E. M. Ochoa. 1988. “The Structure of Industrial Prices,” paper presented at the ASSA annual meetings, New York City, December 28.
- Tributes in the Memory of Alfred S. Eichner, edited by Frederic S. Lee, 1991 [Aaron Warne, Eli Ginzberg, Richard Bartel, Myron Sharpe, Frederic S. Lee, Len Forman, Miles Groves, Toshio Ogata, William Milberg, Paul Davidson, Philip Arestis, Roy Rotheim, and Jan Kregel]
Frederic S. Lee. “The Role of Micro in Heterodox Economics: A View of a Heterodox Micro Theorist,” Presented at the Association for Heterodox Economics Annual Conference, University of Greenwich, London, UK. July 3, 2014. [click on link to download presentation slides]
Dear Friends, Colleagues, and Heterodox Economists,
Fred Lee has been a driving force of heterodox economics movements over the past 30 years. He played a major role in establishing the Association for Heterodox Economics, founded and edited the Heterodox Economics Newsletter, edited the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, has been actively involved in heterodox associations such as AFEE, AFIT, AHE, ASE, EAEPE, HES, ICAPE, URPE, and so on. His activities and contributions are truly community-oriented and self-sacrificing. Above all, Fred has always been concerned about students since they will be the future of heterodox economics.
As some of you already know, Fred will soon retire due to an unexpected illness. In the face of uncertain life conditions, Fred and his wife, Ruth, have recently established the Heterodox Economics Scholarship Fund, which is designed to financially support doctoral heterodox economics students. The Scholarship is open to all doctoral students studying in a heterodox economics program, although currently preference is given to UMKC doctoral students due to the limited amount of funds.
We are sending out this call for contributions with the hope that you share Fred’s “good-will” and make a contribution to this Fund so that more heterodox economics students can complete their studies successfully. Moreover, if you believe you are indebted to Fred for his many contributions, contribute to the Frederic S. Lee Heterodox Economics Scholarship Fund and support students.
To learn more about the Fund, visit here: http://www.gkccf.org/scholarships/frederic-s-lee-heterodox-economics-scholarship-fund
To make a contribution, visit here: https://gkccfonlinedonations.org/give/leeh00.asp
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
John F. Henry
University of Missouri-Kansas City
SUNY Buffalo State
Studies in the Origins and Development of Growth Theory, 1925 – 1950
D. L. Clark
University of Sydney
An extremely important dissertation that starts with Quesnay and Marx, deals with Leontief, Dmitriev, and Bortkiewicz, goes on to Austrian capital theory, Fritz Burchardt, and the Kiel School, and ends with Hobson, Ayres, and Adolph Lowe. This dissertation was extremely novel at the time it was written and remains so today since most heterodox economists have no idea who Burchardt, Lowe, and the Kiel School were. (Frederic S. Lee)
[Unfortunately the microfilm copy of the dissertation is not very good, so it will take some straining to read the dissertation.]
Table of Contents
(a) On Historical Studies in Development
(b) On Growth Theory
(c) Aims and Scope of the Thesis
(a) The Tableau Economique of Francois Quesnay
(b) Dynamic Aspects of the Tableau Economique
(c) The Reproduction Models of Karl Marx
(d) The Tableau Economique and the Reproduction Models
(a) The Tableau Economique and Leontief’s Tableau
(b) Marx and Leontief
(c) Leontief and the Soviet Experiments with Input-Output Tables in the 1902s
(d) From Physiocracy to Walrasian General Equilibrium Theory: The Influence of A. N. Isnard
(e) Leontief and the Kiel School
(a) Some Limitations of Input-Output Analysis
(b) An Outline of the Transformation Problem
(c) Solutions to the Transformation Problem: the Contributions of V. K. Dmitriev and L. von Bortkiewicz
(d) An Essential Digression: the ‘Classical’ Growth Model of J. von Neumann
(e) The Impact and Continuing Significance of the Transformation Problem
(a) The Austrian Theory of Capital: Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk’s Theory of Capital
(b) Knut Wicksell’s Revision of Böhm-Bawerk’s Theory of Capital
(c) The 1930s Controversies: F. A. Burchardt’s Critique of Austrian Capital Theory
(d) The Demise of the Kiel Tradition
(a) Thorstein Veblen
(b) J. A. Hobson
(c) C. E. Ayres and B. S. Keirstead
(d) S. Merlin
(e) Adolph Lowe
(a) Soviet Dynamics of the 1920s: The Feldman Model
(b) A Polish Marxist: Michal Kalecki
(c) Japanese Experiments with the Reproduction Models
(d) A Related Swedish Model: G. Cassel’s Model of a Regularly Expanding Economy
Following materials are collected and archived by Frederic S. Lee.
- Theories of Distribution from Ricardo to Sraffa
- Nuti’s comments on Dobb’s “Some Reflections on the Sraffa System and the Critique of the so-called Neo-Classical Theory of Value and Distribution”
- Correspondence: Pasinetti, Steedman
- Sweezy Correspondence
- Pasinetti Correspondence [14/1/1974][4/3/1974]
- Draft of Paragraph
- Recent Trends in Economic Theory in Britain and America
- Nuti’s “The Transformation of Labour Values into Production Prices and the Marxian Theory of Exploitation
- Lecture on Marxism and the Crisis in Economics
- Some Notes
- A Critical Review of Recent Tendencies in Bourgeois Economic Thought
- Lecture on ‘Some Recent Topics of Discussion in Bourgeois Economic Theory’
- The Seminars on Marxism and a Letter to Sraffa
- A Note on the Discussion
- The ‘Crisis’ in Economic Theory: some random comments on the debate
Note: The above material from the Dobb Papers were used in my book: F. Lee, A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the mainstream in the twentieth century, Routledge, 2009. You might want to read the relevant chapters so to gain an understanding of the historical context of the above material (Frederic S. Lee)
“It is not only the world economy that is in crisis. The teaching of economics is in crisis too, and this crisis has consequences far beyond the university walls. What is taught shapes the minds of the next generation of policymakers, and therefore shapes the societies we live in. We, 42 associations of economics students from 19 different countries, believe it is time to reconsider the way economics is taught. We are dissatisfied with the dramatic narrowing of the curriculum that has taken place over the last couple of decades. This lack of intellectual diversity does not only restrain education and research. It limits our ability to contend with the multidimensional challenges of the 21st century – from financial stability, to food security and climate change. The real world should be brought back into the classroom, as well as debate and a pluralism of theories and methods. This will help renew the discipline and ultimately create a space in which solutions to society’s problems can be generated….”
“The following papers were obtained from Mrs. Meek circa 1998. The originals remain with Mrs. Meek. Ronald Meek was a professor at the University of Leicester when he died; and it appears that all of his papers were destroyed at this time. At least I could not find any. In any case, I was teaching at De Montfort University at this time and was beginning to work on the history of heterodox economics, which was eventually published in 2009. Because Meek was part of this history I contacted Mrs. Meek to see if she had any papers. She did, but not very much, and mostly from the 1970s. I hope you find what I obtained from Mrs. Meek of interest.” – Frederic S. Lee