On Blaug Ten Years Later
Ten years on, Professor Blaug has returned to a subject on which his 1999 article, “Misunderstanding Classical Economics: The Sraffian Interpretation of the Surplus Approach,” stirred up lively debate. The subject is, as he puts it, “Sraffian economics,” and his 2009 paper is a “new version of an earlier effort [that] extends and hopefully deepens the argument.” The themes of his criticism of what we may call the “classical revival” opened up by Sraffa remain, however, basically the same: that the revival is defective because of some alleged overall misinterpretation of the classical economists, and of formalism in the presentation and development of the theoretical approach of those economists. If the main themes of criticism remain broadly the same, there is, however, a very important difference in that the reasonably compact analytical argument that supported the 1999 criticism disappears in the 2009 article, with little remaining to support his contention.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 43 (2011)
Issue (Month): 3 (Fall)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (919) 660-1800
Fax: (919) 684-8974
Web page: http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?viewby=journal&productid=45614
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hop:hopeec:v:43:y:2011:i:3:p:591-605. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Center for the History of Political Economy Webmaster)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.