In search of a renegade absolutist: Blaug versus the Neo-Ricardians

Blaug’s argument that Neo-Ricardians, specifically Sraffa and Pasinetti, have misinterpreted classical economics is contested (see Blaug 1999). With regard to Sraffa, it is argued that Blaug should have focused on Sraffa’s “Introduction” to Ricardo – see Sraffa (1955) rather than Sraffa (1960) which is the key source for Sraffa’s interpretation of Ricardo and the historical justification for the Neo-Ricardian paradigm. Nevertheless, Ricardo would have recognized the problematic posed in Sraffa (1960) and the proposed solution as a legitimate and successful enterprise. As for Pasinetti, Blaug’s argument has no sound basis since the interpretation of Ricardian dynamics in his own textbook (see Blaug 1997 [1962]) has been based on Pasinetti (1960) in the last four editions and conflicts with the allegation of misinterpretation directed to Pasinetti. The shift in Blaug’s methodological position from absolutism to historical reconstructionism is also criticized as a pointless exercise, casting doubt on his early contributions to the history of economic theory from an absolutist standpoint while generating no insights in the critique of the Neo-Ricardian school.