Search

This paper explores the implications of one of the great intellectual revolutions of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the replacement of Marxist economics by neoclassical economics in China. The analysis summarizes what is distinctive about Marxist and neoclassical ways of thinking. The paper then demonstrates how these differences led to different framings and different conclusions about a number of key topics related to the development of capitalism in China. Among the topics explored are the merits of state-owned enterprises, the nature of inequality in China, and the relationship between capitalism and the environment. The paper concludes with a discussion of the different policy agendas that emerge from the different framings offered by neoclassical and Marxist economics. JEL Classification: B41, B51, P2, O53 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By integrating selected Kaleckian and Marxian insights, this paper analyzes the sources of profit realization and the profit rate in the US economy from 1964–2013. The most significant sources of profit realization in the United States are capitalists' consumption and workers' debt, which historically have been under appreciated both theoretically and empirically. The insights gleaned by analyzing the sources of profit realization aid in understanding the Great Recession and the future of the US economy.JEL Classifications: B51, E11 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In spite of its substantial results in understanding modern capitalism and the fact that, until the 1970s, Keynesian theory inspired the economic policy of most countries, the classical/post-Keynesian paradigm failed to become dominant on the theoretical scene. Why? Pasinetti’s book provides an answer by first pointing out the “unwise behavior” of the Cambridge group of Keynesian scholars, then by suggesting how to overcome the present theoretical impasse by the methodological device of the “separation theorem.” Economic enquiry, he argues, should distinguish the phase of “pure theory,” to be elaborated at a logical stage that precedes institutions, from the (applied) institutional analysis. The review concludes by maintaining that, while Pasinetti’s suggestion is fully valid, the theoretical strength of a paradigm is a necessary but not sufficient condition for becoming dominant. As the last decades show, the success or failure of a paradigm is also crucially dependent on social and power relations in society.JEL classification: B50; B31; E12 [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]