IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v24y2000i5p543-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Demise of Radical Political Economics? An Essay on the Evolution of a Theory of Capitalist Production

Author

Listed:
  • Spencer, David A

Abstract

The paper traces the historical development of American radical economics. The focus is on the work of Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis. The central aim is to examine the implications of their recent move towards neoclassical economics for the study of capitalist production in particular, and the future of American radical economics more generally. By embracing neoclassical concepts and methodology, radical economists have denied themselves the opportunity to elucidate both the bases of capitalist class conflict, and the nature of more complex social interactions at the point of production. American radical economics once provided a powerful critique of capitalism and its system of production, but it now struggles to provide more than a policy prescription for reduced levels of opportunism among individual workers. American radical economics cannot remain a distinctive voice in economics while it retains such close associations with neoclassicism. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Spencer, David A, 2000. "The Demise of Radical Political Economics? An Essay on the Evolution of a Theory of Capitalist Production," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 24(5), pages 543-564, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:5:p:543-64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below 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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebitzer, James B, 1993. "Radical Political Economy and the Economics of Labor Markets," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1394-1434, September.
    2. McCloskey,Deirdre N., 1994. "Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521436038, March.
    3. Hodgson, Geoffrey M., 1998. "Competence and contract in the theory of the firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 179-201, April.
    4. Samuel Bowles, 1998. "Endogenous Preferences: The Cultural Consequences of Markets and Other Economic Institutions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(1), pages 75-111, March.
    5. John E. Roemer, 1979. "Divide and Conquer: Microfoundations of a Marxian Theory of Wage Discrimination," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(2), pages 695-705, Autumn.
    6. Herbert Gintis, 1972. "A Radical Analysis of Welfare Economics and Individual Development," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 86(4), pages 572-599.
    7. Nicolaides, Phedon, 1988. "Limits to the Expansion of Neoclassical Economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 313-328, September.
    8. Costabile, Lilia, 1995. "Institutions, Social Custom and Efficiency Wage Models: Alternative Approaches," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(5), pages 605-623, October.
    9. McCloskey,Deirdre N., 1994. "Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521434751, March.
    10. Terence Hutchison, 1998. "Ultra-deductivism from Nassau Senior to Lionel Robbins and Daniel Hausman," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 43-91.
    11. Edwards, P. K., 1990. "The politics of conflict and consent : How the labor contract really works," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 41-61, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Spencer, 2003. "Love's labor's lost? the disutility of work and work avoidance in the economic analysis of labor supply," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(2), pages 235-250.

    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:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:5:p:543-64. 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: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.