IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prs/caecpo/cep_0154-8344_1993_num_22_1_1140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approche classique et apport néo-ricardien : Un commentaire

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Arena

Abstract

[eng] 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. [fre] Ce commentaire discute certaines des réticences exprimées par lan Steedman à effectuer un bilan du programme néo-ricardien. On avance d'abord que l'œuvre de Sraffa ne doit pas être confondue avec le travail des néo-ricardiens, et on suggère que certaines critiques adressées aux seconds ne s'appliquent pas forcément au premier. On soutient par ailleurs que le bilan du courant néo-ricardien n'épuise pas celui de la tradition classique dans son entier, de sorte que les limites du premier ne préjugent pas du pouvoir de renouvellement analytique de la seconde. On défend en particulier l'idée qu'il n'y a pas trop à craindre le maquis des discussions sémantiques, dans la mesure où la notion d'économie de production organisée et l'introduction d'une division sociale des agents tracent une ligne de démarcation suffisamment claire avec l'économie néo-classique pour dessiner une identité classique. Le problème de la compatibilité entre exigences de production et de reproduction d'une part, et règles de répartition d'autre part définit une approche alternative à la théorie usuelle de l'offre et de la demande. La perspective classique ainsi redéfinie présente un bilan à la fois plus riche et plus divers que celui du programme de recherche néo-ricardien. L'œuvre de Kaldor, qui ne relève pas du second, relève ainsi clairement de la première. On soutient enfin que, compte tenu de la nature même de la théorie sraffienne, il n'y a pas lieu de trop dramatiser le faible nombre d'applications qu'elle a connues.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Arena, 1993. "Approche classique et apport néo-ricardien : Un commentaire," Cahiers d'Économie Politique, Programme National Persée, vol. 22(1), pages 13-19.
  • Handle: RePEc:prs:caecpo:cep_0154-8344_1993_num_22_1_1140
    DOI: 10.3406/cep.1993.1140
    Note: DOI:10.3406/cep.1993.1140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3406/cep.1993.1140
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.persee.fr/doc/cep_0154-8344_1993_num_22_1_1140
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3406/cep.1993.1140?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:prs:caecpo:cep_0154-8344_1993_num_22_1_1140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Equipe PERSEE (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.persee.fr/collection/cep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.