Joan Robinson and MIT

The great question which has always haunted the type of analysis offered by the MIT economists in answer to Robinson\u27s provocative critique (1953) has always been her own question: how to get into equilibrium? If the notion of vision at a distance, inherent in dynamic equilibrium analysis (Dorfman, Samuelson, and Solow, 1958) means co-ordination of long-term expectations, recent work shows theory, that getting into equilibrium is an impossibility. This vindicates Robinson\u27s position in the capital controversy, at least with respect to the MIT economists

From Cambridge Keynesian to Institutional Economist: The Unnoticed Contributions of Robert Neild

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Robert Neild (born 1924) has made a major contribution to economics and to peace studies. This paper provides a brief sketch of Neild’s life and work. While noting his research in economic policy and peace studies, this essay devotes more attention to his largely-unnoticed contributions to institutional and evolutionary economics since 1984. These are important in their own right, but they are especially notable because Cambridge heterodox economists have been devoted mainly to other approaches, including Marxism and post-Keynesianism. Neild’s distinctive contribution is partly explained by his closeness to both Nicholas Kaldor and Gunnar Myrdal. Myrdal made explicit his adherence to the original American institutionalism: Neild extended that link to Cambridge.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

XThe psychosocial impact of living with an ocular prosthesis

Objective: Many patients are satisfied with their ocular prosthesis, but some describe problems with social interactions, body image and self-esteem. Although both clinical practice and research suggest that the severity of a disfiguring condition does not predict distress, there has been little research with patients living with an ocular prosthesis. The objective was to explore the psychological impact of living with an artificial eye or cosmetic shell and determine the relationship between psychological well-being and clinical and psychosocial factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study between March and September 2008 at the ocular prosthesis clinic of Moorfields Eye Hospital, UK. The primary outcome measures were mood as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and appearance-related social anxiety and social avoidance, as measured by the Derriford Appearance Scale (DAS24). Results: Mean scores on the HADS and DAS24 were within normal range, but a considerable proportion of participants were experiencing significant levels of distress. Psychosocial adjustment was unrelated to most clinical and demographic variables, but was associated with a series of cognitive processes. Conclusions: Psychological variables, rather than clinical or demographic factors, are associated with how a patient adjusts to wearing an ocular prosthesis. Such factors might be amenable to change through psychosocial intervention

The ending of southern Africa's tripartite dream: the cases of South Africa, Namibia and Mozambique

This article examines the rise and decline of tripartite experiments in southern Africa, focusing on South Africa, Mozambique and Namibia, where tripartism emerged as part of the broader processes of democratisation and embedding democratic institutions. Why did these experiments largely fail to achieve the gains for labour that might have been anticipated? In each case, the lack of success can be ascribed to the ecosystemic dominance of neo-liberalism, returning growth fuelled by higher commodities prices, the changing structure of elites, dominant partyism, and structural weaknesses in both organised business and the labour movement

Presidential Signing Statements and Executive Power

A recent debate about the Bush administration\u27s use of presidential signing statements has raised questions about their function, legality, and value. We argue that presidential signing statements are legal and that they provide a useful way for the president to disclose his views about the meaning and constitutionality of legislation. In addition, basic tenets of positive political theory suggest that signing statements do not undermine the separation of powers or the legislative process and that, under certain circumstances, they can provide relevant evidence of statutory meaning. Although President Bush has raised many more constitutional challenges within his signing statements than prior presidents have, at least on their face these challenges are similar to challenges made by other recent presidents, such as President Clinton. Whether Bush\u27s views of executive power are significantly different from Clinton\u27s, and if so, whether they are inferior, remain open questions, but these issues are independent of whether signing statements are lawful