| Titre | Approche classique et apport néo-ricardien : Un commentaire. | |
|---|---|---|
| Auteur | Richard Arena | |
 |
Revue | Cahiers d'économie politique |
| Numéro | no 22, printemps 1993 Actualité et spécificité de la pensée classique | |
| Page | 13-19 | |
| Résumé anglais |
In this comment, we discuss some of the reserves expressed by lan Steedman in his assessment of the neo-Ricardian school. Firstly, it is assessed that Sraffa's work should not be identified with the developments of neo-Ricardian school, so that it can be suggested that at least some of the critics addressed to them are not valuable for it. Secondly, it is sustained that the neo-Ricardian school does not represent the whole of the classical contemporary school, so that the limits to its developments do not prejudge of the analytical power of the latter. As far as the notion of an organised economy of production and the account made of a social division of agents draw a sufficiently clear line between classical and neo-classical economics, we must not be afraid, as Steedman suggests, by the jungle of semantic discussions. The problem of mutual compatibility between the needs of reproduction and the rules of distribution of wealth defines an approach that we can consider as an alternative to the usual supply and demand theory. The thus (re)defined classical perspective offers a balance both richer and more diversified than that of the neo-Ricardian program. The work of Nicolas Kaldor is a good illustration of this point. Finally, the relatively rare applications of the Sraffian theory must be related to its very nature, and do not necessary represent a limit of its developments. Source : Éditeur (via Persée) |
|
| Article en ligne | http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/cep_0154-8344_1993_num_22_1_1140 |
