IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v39y2015i4p1149-1165..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shackle on time, uncertainty and process

Author

Listed:
  • John Latsis

Abstract

This paper is intended both as a contribution to the conceptual work on process in economic thought and as an attempt to connect a non-institutionalist, non-evolutionary thinker to it. The paper has two principal objectives: (i) to delineate a broad, philosophically grounded conception of what an economic process theory (EPT) is; and (ii) to locate the contributions of George Shackle within this broad conception of EPT. In pursuing these two objectives, I hope to draw out the originality and significance of Shackle’s economics with a particular emphasis on what he adds to process conceptions developed within other heterodox traditions such as institutional and evolutionary economics. I will also highlight some of the perceived limitations of Shackle’s approach and link them to the limitations of process philosophy.

Suggested Citation

  • John Latsis, 2015. "Shackle on time, uncertainty and process," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 39(4), pages 1149-1165.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:39:y:2015:i:4:p:1149-1165.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bev031
    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. Marina Bianchi & Sergio Nisticò, 2018. "Shackle: an enquirer into choice," Working Papers 2018-03, Universita' di Cassino, Dipartimento di Economia e Giurisprudenza.
    2. John F. McVea & Nicholas Dew, 2022. "Unshackling Imagination: How Philosophical Pragmatism can Liberate Entrepreneurial Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(2), pages 301-316, November.

    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:39:y:2015:i:4:p:1149-1165.. 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.