Access
Open Access
Date Range
1981-2007
Description
This collection includes a letter from Jove Rosa Nación thanking Shaikh for his help and discussing economic theories (6/10/97), a letter from Ruth Haines at Blackwell Publishers regarding the advance payment for Shaikh’s book "Marxian Economic Analysis" (6/10/97), a letter from Blackwell Publishers requesting Shaikh to repay the advance on "Marxian Economic Analysis" (01/97), a letter from Sue Howard and Philip Arestis inviting Shaikh to contribute to the "Dictionary of Dissenting Economists" (10/25/89), a letter to Romesh Vaitilingam discussing the Resnick/Wolff manuscript "Radical Economics: A Tradition of Theoretical Differences" (6/4/90), a letter from Vaitilingam requesting that Shaikh review the Resnick/Wolff manuscript (2/28/90), a letter from Makoto Itoh thanking Shaikh for arranging his visit and discussing his travel plans and recent political events in Japan (2/18/90), a letter from Cara Schlesinger thanking Shaikh for his contribution to the special issue of Social Research (8/5/04), a letter from Diego Guerrero discussing Shaikh’s long-wave theory and raising questions about the evolution of the rate of profit with hand drawn graphs (6/2/91), a letter from Ingo Barens requesting information on empirical wage/profit curves and discussing the implications of Shaikh’s work on the "humbug" production function (5/13/92), a letter from Ranjit Sau requesting to give a seminar at the New School on the IMF model of stabilization (1/8/92), a letter from Ajit Sinha discussing his paper on Smith and Mandeville, the job market, and his research on the transformation problem (4/8/92), a letter from inviting Shaikh to give lectures in Cali, Colombia (6/9/81), a letter to Gareth Locksley discussing the news from France and the results of recent By-elections (7/21/81), a letter from Locksley discussing the nature of competition and the news from France (7/7/81), a letter to Paul Stevenson sending copies of two papers (5/21/81), a letter from Neri Salvadori soliciting comments on a paper (6/3/80), a letter from Paul Stevenson requesting figures and methodology for calculating the real rate of surplus value and inquiring about critiques of Shane Mage’s thesis (4/27/81), a letter from Allen Oakley thanking Shaikh for his comments on his Ph.D. thesis and expressing interest in meeting and presenting a seminar paper (5/1/81), a letter to Salvadori expressing disappointment with the paper on the Keynesian view of the role of the state that Shaikh had written (3/16/81), letter to Maurice Zeitlin thanking for his comments (3/16/81), from Zeitlin thanking Shaikh for sending the papers (1/25/81), letter to Oakley asking to give him a call to discuss giving a talk (3/16/81), letter from Oakley with topic ideas (2/16/81), letter to Suzanne DeBrunhoff discussing her apartment arrangements, salary, and courses for teaching (10/5/81), a letter from Terence Byres thanking Shaikh for his hospitality and discussing Adam Smith’s time at Oxford and Shaikh’s experience at Princeton (5/25/00), a card from Cheol-Soo Park thanking Shaikh for his support and comments on his dissertation, card from Manuela thanking Shaikh for a necklace, a letter discussing a teaching position (7/3/88), letter from Alan thanking Shaikh for inspiring his work(10/25/04), letter to the chair of University of Utah econ department regarding Rajani Kanth's tenure review (12/14/88), letter to Rasul Shams discussing economic theory (8/6/80), letter from Shams commenting on Shaikh's paper (7/14/80), letter from Ian Steedman asking if Shaikh considers himself a member of CPE (7/11/80), letter to Ed thanking for his friendship but chiding his irresponsibility (2/24/81), letter to Chris Edwards and Howard Nichols discussing economics (7/11/80), letter from Edward and Nichols discussing articles in CJE 1978 & 1980 (6/12/80), and a letter discussing a paper (7/2/07).
Recommended Citation
Shaikh, Anwar PhD, "Correspondence - Green" (2025). Archives of Anwar Shaikh. 191.
https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/as_archive/191
Comments
Some of the individual papers are difficult to read as they have faded, received some water damage, or are crumbled.