Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:28:30.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On a Recent “Review Essay” in JHET

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Extract

On September 22, 1994 we signed a contract with Edward Elgar Publishing Limited to edit The Elgar Companion to Classical Economics (ECCE) (Kurz and Salvadori 1998). Dr. Terry Peach accepted our invitation (dated January 10, 1995) to contribute an entry to ECCE by July 15, 1995. He was reminded of the deadline in a letter dated June 19 and again in a letter dated August 28, when we suggested a new deadline of September 30. Our only response from Peach was a letter dated September 5, also to the publisher, informing us that he had “to rescind [his] offer to contribute an entry.” This unexpected withdrawal was justified on the following grounds:

My critical position on the Sraffa-inspired history of economic thought, and particularly on the “Sraffian” interpretation of Ricardo, is probably well known to you. After long deliberation I have decided that I cannot in all conscience make even a minor contribution to a project which, to a pronounced degree, apparently seeks to promote a particular version of the history of economic thought to which I am profoundly opposed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blaug, M. 1999. “Misunderstanding Classical Economics: The Sraffian Interpretation of the Surplus Approach.” History of Political Economy 31: 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, H. D. and Salvadori, N., eds. 1998. The Elgar Companion to Classical Economics, 2 vols. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurz, H. D. and Salvadori, N.. 1999. “Understanding ‘Classical’ Economics: A Reply to Mark Blaug.” Submitted to History of Political Economy.Google Scholar