I probably will not order the first two. But I think their existence is of interest. And I do not currently have access to the third.
- Norbert Häring and Niall Douglas (2012) Economists and the Powerful: Convenient Theories, Distorted Facts, Ample Rewards, Anthem Press.
- Kalle Lasn (2013) Meme Wars: The Creative Destruction of Neoclassical Economics, Seven Stories Press.
- Tobias Galla and J. Doyne Farmer (22 January 2013). Complex Dynamics in Learning Complicated Games, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, V. 110, No. 4: pp. 1232-1236
- Sergio Parrinello (2000). The "Institutional Factor" in the Theory of International Trade: New vs. Old Trade Theories.
I suppose I might try to find the paper, by Benjamin Page, Larry Bartels, and Jason Seawright, that Paul Krugman references in his New York Times column last Friday. By the way, Krugman is basically worrying that economics is "vulgar political economy", a technical term introduced by Karl Marx. But Krugman cannot reference Marx or acknowledge Marx was maybe correct about something.
In my draft paper on the failure of the theory of comparative advantage to justify free trade, I am currently ignoring Krugman and new trade theory. The fourth reference above might be usefully footnoted in my article. I believe Parrinello also has an article in a recent festschrift volume for Ian Steedman.
I recently stumbled across Rob Beamish's 1992 book, Marx, Method, and the Division of Labor. This book traces the development of a concept, the division of labor, in Marx's manuscripts and published work, including the manuscripts I mentioned in a previous post. Furthermore, Beamish argues that if historical materialism is true, it must apply to the development of Marx's ideas.