In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

298 letters in canada 1999 resemblances. Lowe, in work that started in the 1930s, was concerned with the fact that the traverse from one regime of accumulation to another (a slower or faster one) was impossible to achieve smoothly, that is, without waste (unemployment) or capacity constraints. Lowe, along with the creator of input-output analysis Wassily Leontief, was a member of the socalled Kiel School, which argued that production is essentially a circular process, with commodities being produced by other commodities. The Kiel School was in opposition to the Austrian School, led by Friedrich Hayek, who saw production as a linear process and who believed (in contrast to Keynes) that the lack of aggregate demand was not the main cause of the Great Depression. Instead, Hayek faulted disproportions in the growth of the two sectors outlined by Lonergan, initially caused by rates of interest that had been set too low by the banking system, a reason which Lonergan certainly did not endorse. As to Kalecki, who was a Marxist by training, he also dealt with the proportionality problem, which arises when the flow of investment does not grow at the same rate as the overall stock of capital. The editors point out that Lonergan attempted to induce some experts in economics to read his work, but apparently with very little success, since he got `little, if any, reaction or encouragement.' I have probably experienced the same feelings as my predecessors. The book is very hard to read; it is replete with definitions, the usefulness of which is uncertain. Sometimes the author seems to marvel at phenomena which are taken for granted by economists, such as exponential growth. Also, the author often invents a terminology when one already exists. The editors have provided a wonderful introduction. They do a splendid job of making comprehensible sets of notes which are incredibly obscure. The editors provide an insightful report on the economic readings (mostly heterodox ones) that did have some influence on Lonergan's thinking, especially when his interest in economics was revived in the late 1970s. They must be congratulated for their patient work in providing a coherent notation for Lonergan's equations. Those who wish to comprehend Lonergan's views on macroeconomic dynamics and monetary circulation within a wider setting would be well advised to read the editors' fifty-page introduction. (MARC LAVOIE) David Novak. Natural Law in Judaism Cambridge University Press 1998. xii, 210. US $54.95 A fascinating puzzle lies at the centre of Judaism. One the one hand, Judaism is an avowedly particularistic and indeed local faith: the concept of the Gentile is not just a synonym for an `anonymous Jew,' or the designation of a target of evangelization; Judaism recognizes the reality of other peoples on the earth, and Jews have been blessedly inoculated humanities 299 against those particularly vicious forms of provincialism which often pass under the name of `universalism.' Yet on the other hand Judaism preaches and teaches radical monotheism: There is one God, who shall one day be king over all the earth, and before whom every knee shall bow B not just the Jewish ones. More pointedly, this one God has chosen the people of Israel, elected them from all the peoples of the earth. What about those others? How should Jews understand their existence? What commonalties does Israel share with them, and how should the elect relate to them? It is to pursue answers to such questions, arising at the intersection of Judaism's humble recognition of the people's locality and particularity, and its proclamation of God's universal sovereignty, that David Novak has written his masterful and erudite Natural Law in Judaism. An appeal to the concept of natural law in Judaism elicits suspicions from a number of readers (among whom I initially numbered myself). It seems a concept more imposed on Judaism than one native to it; the idea of natural law itself seems dubious: Morally it seems tempted towards a parochial imperialism, functioning as a cultural defoliant, obliterating rather than accommodating difference. Novak recognizes natural law's`credibility problem' concerning its tendency towards reducing `many particularities to one particularity, which only becomes universal by a process of...

pdf

Share