2012_11 Writing Group

Writing Group Feedback

structure better kill the philosophical parts

alex comments: mehr VoC, outside the neoclassical dogma, regulation theory

• at least out myself as neoclassical guy, and explain why I don't do regulation theory
• alex says: do more historical background, they are historically built. My prescriptive approach is ahistorical
• explain: I don't do VoCs, but I am aware there is a lot of variance out there.
• explain: I am neoclassical guy

efficiency wages: is this still up to date?

• make language more careful
• absolut

make more explicit why efficiency wages matter, why any of it matters. explain more clearly, less ornaments, less repetition, take along the reader. ossi says: it's quite clear what I don't do, but not clear WHAT i do? Why CEEC?

Alexander Schellinger

I spent some time with your draft dissertation. While I read some chapters more closely, I did glance over some other parts, but I think I have a good impression of what it is about. I do not just enjoy your writing, but also your juggling of some of the biggest ideas we know. Your intellectual fearlessness - or better courage - proves fruitful. While this is by no means just the obligatory commendation, I do have some more serious questions /comments:

1. While I think your treatment of some very big ideas is laudable and necessary, I am unhappy about the treatment of some very big philosophical concepts. Take the concept of enlightenment. I think somewhere along, I figured that you seem to have a more Scottish understanding. But you also refer to E in its continental development. Two points: a) this is problematic because the latter has - at least in my view - very little to do with your idea of "homo oeconomicus;" b) if you make references like this, you must be absolutely sure that they are right. This brings me to my next point.

2. The difficulty is in catching the nuances of many of the writes that you cite. For me some shortcomings seem obvious on philosophical issues. You might want to avoid drawing the picture as large as possible and consider: "small is beautiful." My sense is that for some things we are not old enough. To put it in another way, we are still young enough to write "that" book.

3. We know that we disagree on the role of researchers and science, but we also agree in strange ways. I think we agree that science is normative and political. But you seem to suggest that the goal - equality - is a normative goal and it is the task of the researcher to point out the way to that goal: in an objective way! This is where we disagree. I have a spectrum of opposition to that view, but it is firmest with economists and their theories because they often imply the most profound changes. Right now, I can think of two reasons why I can't take these guys seriously intellectually and they are both connected to history: a) recent history shows that - as well-hearted as they might have been - they caused a lot of misery, take the Harvard guys and the shock therapy in Russia. b) history - now take communism / fascism / nazism etc. - teaches us that scientists are as much product of their time as they can succeed in revealing the truth... I am dazzled by the immodesty that disciplines like economics have made their own... It should be obvious that this is not just a matter of writing style, but I am unsure on what to recommend other than to take history more seriously. (Perhaps this ties in with Scharpf's comment...)

4. What you need and what you do not need is difficult to determine, but might not always be just up to taste. Consider the quote by the Catwoman from The Dark Knight Rises. You seem to say that what she says is true and serious - but you take it from a Hollywood blockbuster and juxtapose with a quote by Keynes. The reader might not be so much awakened as estranged by such rhetorical figures. Moreover, consider that you want to write plainly in the quest for truth - this seems to be your self-imposed standard (see 3)) - , but your ample use of ornaments, turns the piece almost in a kind of baroque church that makes it difficult for the spectator to concentrate on the essential parts. (On a more general note, it might be good to keep in mind the audience - are you writing for peers or the general public - or do you believe it does not matter?)

5. If the quality of intellectual work is in any way related to the degree of awareness about assumptions made, then perhaps it could be helpful to outline some of the assumptions you make even more clearly. (At one point you make the claim that you just work within the neo-classical framework to prove them wrong with their own means; I am not convinced as you do not apply this comprehensively, but switch to a more universal approach throughout.) I made some references to the French Regulation theory and Polanyi - that has been a central source of inspiration for many like Streeck and most recently VoC. You might not use it, but it might be helpful to contrast it with your approach to draw out assumptions.

6. On this note a couple comments: a) institutionalists would claim that you do not really take into account institutional complementarities that are different across political economie. b) they would also claim that you do not take into account sufficiently that the way the economy is run depends on what it is made up of, i.e. the spectrum between services and industries...

7. I second Ossi's point on setting out the research question clearly at the beginning. I, for example, have not found out, why you are interested in the CEEC. I also think that chapter 2 includes way too many details - and I am not sure where they come up again in the later work (for me that would be the justification to have them in there in the first place). I also would welcome if Chapter 3 and 4 at least included reviews of empirical evidence...

This is it. I hope this is helpful to you. I quite enjoyed this exercise and it is very nice to see the differences in the way our brains are wired.

Christoph Ossege

Eine Sache, die ich - bin allerdings grad auch etwas groggy - nicht ganz verstanden habe (und sehr zentral ist), incl. einem Vorschlag meinerseits:

Willst du deine Forschungsfrage nicht zielgerichteter formulieren und damit von Anfang an deutlicher machen, worauf dein Projekt hinausläuft? Du fängst super offen an, steigst bei Adam und Eva in die ökonomische Theorie ein und gehst dann Stück für Stück durch die Kapitel der Geschichte - ohne dass ich jemals erfahre, worauf dein Projekt genau abzielt. (Du schreibst in der Introduction mehr darüber, was du nicht machst, als draüber, was du machst). Ich vermisse am Anfang einen Ausblick, wo ich rauskomme nach 200 Seiten, damit ich mich drauf einstellen kann.

Das wäre glaube ich rel. leicht zu bewerkstelligen, denn die Seiten 80+ scheinen mir durchaus so, als hättest du eine konkrete Frage, z.B.: Does the welfare state provide us with the adequate tools/means to cope with failing public goods and time-inconsistencies?

failing public goods und time-inconsistencies wären dann die zwei Aspekte, die gelöst werden müssen (was aktuell in der Realität wohl scheitert und deshalb die Fähigkeiten des Wohlfahrtsstaats in Frage stellt). Diese böten also deine normative Richtschnur zur Bewertung der Wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Theorie. (eng zusammenhängend auch mit deinem "Kapitel" zu "Tradeoffs".)

Vielleicht habe ich deinen Fokus völlig falsch verstanden. Dann verwirf diesen Kommentar inhaltlich und sieh in lediglich als Anreiz, zu Beginn stärker deutlich zu machen, worauf du abzielst! Wenn das hier nicht ganz quark ist, dann hilft es hoffentlich!