IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v29y2005i4p619-634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sheila Dow's concept of dualism: clarification, criticism and development

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Mearman

Abstract

This paper analyses Dow's concept of dualism and decomposes it into eight categories, one not explicitly identified by Dow. It is argued that Dow's original definition is underdeveloped and thereby lacking practical relevance. The paper presents a development of Dow's definition, which allows her to attack the splitting of polar categories. This significantly increases the relevance of Dow's definition of dualism and buttresses her criticisms of the mainstream. The paper also identifies 'heuristic dualism' in Dow's work. A distinction can be made between Dow's 'heuristic dualism', which is strictly an intermediate step in an argument, and the mainstream use of fixed dualistic categories. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Mearman, 2005. "Sheila Dow's concept of dualism: clarification, criticism and development," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(4), pages 619-634, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:29:y:2005:i:4:p:619-634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bei019
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael McLure, 2004. "Pure Duals, Derived Duals and Paretian Fiscal Sociology," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 04-25, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:29:y:2005:i:4:p:619-634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.