Re: Which label: neo-Ricardian, surplus approach, or linear production theory?

From: mongiovg (mongiovg@STJOHNS.EDU)
Date: Tue Dec 02 2003 - 14:50:37 EST

Well, you can't go wrong with "linear production theory."  "Surplus approach"
works if you're talking about Sraffa, Pasinetti and Steedman, but doesn't
really fit for Leontief and I think there is some ambiguity as regards von
Neumann (though Kurz & Salvadori put vN squarely in the Sraffian tradition).

No one to whom the label "neo-Ricardian" is applied likes it, so I'd avoid it
simply on the grounds of good manners. I suspect that it is often used by some
Marxists or critical realists to suggest a certain bourgeoise backwardness.



>===== Original Message From Ian Wright <ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM> =====
>I would like to use the correct or accepted label for the class of economic
>models associated with Von Neumann, Sraffa, Pasinetti, Steedman and
>others. The common elements I want to characterise are: (i) simultaneous
>solution to a set of technical-production constraints, (ii) distribution of
>a physical, surplus product, (iii) production of commodities by means of
>Can anyone tell me what is the accepted label for this class of models?
>I've come across labels such as "neo-Ricardian", "surplus approach",
>"linear production theory" and "physical quantities approach". Is there a
>commonly accepted label that the practitioners accept?
>Thanks for any help in advance.
>The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 00:00:00 EST