Hostname: page-component-76c49bb84f-hwk5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-09T22:28:10.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Further Thoughts on Clarifying the Idea of Dissent: The Russian and Soviet Experience

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Vincent Barnett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his Journal of the History of Economic Thought article, “A Suggestion for Clarifying the Study of Dissent in Economics,” Roger Backhouse usefully proposed some terminological clarifications with respect to studying the ideas of disagreement, controversy, and dissent in (Western) economic discourse, heterodoxy being defined as a more narrow category than dissent. Backhouse also wrote that “the ideas on which Marxist, Radical, and Post Keynesian economics are based were arguably never widely held” (Backhouse 2004, p. 265).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 111 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2006

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Backhouse, Roger (2004) A Suggestion for Clarifying the Study of Dissent in Economics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26 (2), pp. 261–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Vincent (1994a) The Economic Thought of L. N. Yurovskii, Coexistence, 31 (1), pp. 63–77.Google Scholar
Barnett, Vincent (1994b) As Good as Gold? A Note on the chervonets, Europe-Asia Studies, 46 (4), pp. 663–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Vincent (1998) Kondratiev and the Dynamics of Economic Development: Long Cycles and Industrial Growth in Historical Context (London: Macmillan).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Vincent (2004a) Catalysing Growth? Mendeleev and the 1891 Tariff, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 22-A, pp. 123–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Vincent (2004b) E. E. Slutsky: Mathematical Statistician, Economist, and Political Economist? Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 26 (1), pp. 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Vincent (2004c) M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, the Methodology of Political Economy, and the “Russian Historical School,” History of Political Economy, 36 (1), pp. 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Vincent (2004d) Historical Political Economy in Russia, 1870–1913, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 11 (2), pp. 231–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, William (2002) Economics and Its Enemies (London: Palgrave).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagarlitsky, Boris (1995) Restoration in Russia (London: Verso).Google Scholar
Klamer, Arjo (1984) Conversations with Economists (New Jersey: Rowman).Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1981. Capital, vol. 3 (Harmondsworth: Penguin).Google Scholar
Williams, J. M. G. and Hargreaves, I. R. (1994) Neuroses: Depressive and Anxiety Disorders, in: Colman, A. M. (Ed) Companion Encyclopedia of Psychology (London: Routledge).Google Scholar