From: T0Morrow@aol.com
Date: Thu Mar 04 1999 - 00:19:58 MST
[An aside more important to me than what follows herein: I believe that Robin
Hanson deserves a hearty "Huzzah!" for his upcoming career move. But I'll let
him tell us more, if he so chooses.]
I'd criticized Krugman's analysis of network effects both for using the wrong
terminology (calling it "externalities") and for failing to adequately
accomodate new evidence regarding the QWERTY myth. Robin Hanson wrote:
>Searching for "Liebowitz Margolis network effects" at AltaVista gets me this
>10/98 CATO policy analysis: http://wwwpub.utdallas.edu/~liebowit/cato.html
The criticisms of those authors regarding the misnomer "network externalities"
comes in other, earlier work. I believe that it is available online, via one
or both of the author's academic homepages, though I read it in hardcopy
texts. An earlier Liebowitz & Margolis text--the Reason piece?--also claimed
that Krugman was deliberately avoiding facts about his beloved QWERTY case.
Liebowitz & Margolis are perhaps now sensitive to Krugman's latter-day
conversion because they think that they deserve some credit for forcing it
upon him. The allegation that Krugman wrongly took credit for discovering the
network effect came from another source, as I recall--that fellow at Stanford;
Paul, is it?
>These authors don't complain about the phrase "network externality", and I
>see no reason to complain either.
As I noted, they do complain about the phrase, though perhaps not in the work
you looked at. I've typed and erased a few clumsy attempts to paraphrase
their argument; better I should leave it to someone more expert than I. I
left my collection of Liebowitz & Margolis papers at my other office, however,
or else I would offer you a helpful quote.
Tom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:14 MST