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]

This article examines the application of neoclassical economics to the discussion of China's transition to the market in the 1990s and its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. It shows how this theory shaped, and misled, forecasts of the impact of that accession and of China's subsequent economic performance. It discusses the debate between mini-bang and big-bang transition policies in the 1990s and shows the two sides shared far more in common than separated them. Both sides misestimated, in fact grossly underestimated, the dynamism of China's economy. It shows how widely anticipated predictions of crisis and collapse with China's WTO accession were the natural result of the assumptions of the neoclassical model. It suggests that a rival model of market transition based on Bukharin and Kuznets has much to offer. JEL Classification: P22, P26, P21, B24 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]