Marx has never been very influential among Western economists, but the collapse of all types of socialist movements has reinforced the belief that Marx is irrelevant for economic analysis. At the same time, some heterodox economists have claimed that neoclassical theory is sufficiently flexible to provide a foundation for post-Keynesians, institutionalists, evolutionary and feminist economists. We argue that both conclusions are incorrect and that Marx's treatment of agents' choices and constraints, and of systemic cooperation and conflict, is far superior to that of orthodoxy in several crucial respects and can provide a better grounding for non-neoclassical analyses. Copyright 2001 by Oxford University Press.
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Volume (Year): 25 (2001) Issue (Month): 6 (November) Pages: 785-807 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF
Contact details of provider: Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK Fax: 01865 267 985 Email: Web page: http://www.cje.oupjournals.org/