Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics From Kale

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/367736094
Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics: From Kalecki to Sraffa and

Joan Robinson
Book · April 2022

DOI: 10.4324/9781003283416
CITATIONS READS
0 150
1 author:
Ludo Cuyvers
University of Antwerp
187 PUBLICATIONS 1,786 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Ludo Cuyvers on 08 May 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Neo-Marxism and Post-
Keynesian Economics
Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson, both iconic Cambridge economists, were
highly inf luenced by the economic theory of Karl Marx, and integrated im-
portant elements of Marx’s economic system into their theories. This book
argues, based on published and unpublished documents, that the work of
Sraffa and Robinson can in fact be considered as essentially post-Keynesian
neo-Marxist.
The first part of the book reviews the intellectual development of several
key thinkers along this neo-Marxist current in economic thought: Kalecki,
Steindl, Baran, and Sweezy. Parts 1 and 2 separately examine Robinson’s and
Sraffa’s works and question how they fit into this specific neo-Marxist cur-
rent, either building on it (in Robinson’s case) or following another direction
(in Sraffa’s case). Part 3 observes Robinson’s theory of economic growth and
its relationship to the views of Marx and Kalecki. Overall, Cuyvers demon-
strates how their thought processes share characteristics with neo-Marxist
key views, such as stating or implying the labour theory of value as either
redundant or wrong, emphasising the role of class struggle in the distribution
of income and rejecting Marx’s falling rate of profits.
Following on from ideas brief ly introduced in Cuyvers’s Economic Ideas of
Marx’s Capital (2017), this book will particularly appeal to readers interested
in the history of economic thought, works of Sraffa, Robinson, and Marx,
post-Keynesian economics, and neo-Marxism.
Ludo Cuyvers is Emeritus Professor at the University of Antwerp, Belgium

and Extraordinary Professor at North-West University, South Africa.
Routledge Studies in the History of Economics
David Ricardo. An Intellectual Biography

Sergio Cremaschi
Humanity and Nature in Economic Thought

Searching for the Organic Origins of the Economy
Edited by Gábor Bíró
European and Chinese Histories of Economic Thought

Theories and Images of Good Governance
Edited by Iwo Amelung and Bertram Schefold
Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations in Spain

A History of Reception, Dissemination, Adaptation and Application,
1777–1840
Edited by Jesús Astigarraga and Juan Zabalza
Immanuel Kant and Utilitarian Ethics

Samuel Hollander
Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics

From Kalecki to Sraffa and Joan Robinson
Ludo Cuyvers
Theology, Morality and Adam Smith

Edited by Jordan J. Ballor and Cornelis van der Kooi
Classical Economics, Keynes and Money

Edited by John Eatwell, Pasquale Commendatore and Neri Salvadori
For more information about this series, please visit www.routledge.com/

series/SE0341
Neo-Marxism and Post-
Keynesian Economics
From Kalecki to Sraffa
and Joan Robinson
Ludo Cuyvers
First published 2022
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Ludo Cuyvers
The right of Ludo Cuyvers to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-1-032-25480-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-25482-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-28341-6 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003283416
Typeset in Bembo
by codeMantra
To my grandchildren Flor, Emiel, Hannelore, Quinten,
Sien, Staf, Louis, Pauline, Hendrik and Juliette.
Contents
List of figures xi
Preface xiii
PART 1
Post-Keynesian neo-Marxism: the trajectory 1
1 The core of Marx’s economics and the monopolisation

of capitalism: an introduction to some major issues 6
2 The Oxbridge connection: Sraffa, Kalecki, Steindl 11

2.1 Piero Sraffa’s notes and publications 11
2.2 The Kalecki–Steindl nexus: some biographical data that are
relevant to our story 14
2.3 Capitalist long-run economic development: the views of Kalecki
and Steindl in a nutshell 16
3 The other side of the Atlantic 25

3.1 Influence of Kalecki’s neo-Marxism on Baran and Sweezy:
evidence from the Baran−Sweezy correspondence 26
3.2 Baran and Sweezy’s Monopoly Capital 31
4 Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson: two directions of

post-Keynesian neo-Marxism 41
4.1 Sraffa’s way: picking up the thread where it was left by Ricardo
and Marx 41
4.2 The Robinson direction: building on Keynes, Marx, and Kalecki 44
5 What remains of post-Keynesian neo-Marxist

economics? An unfinished integration 51
viii Contents
PART 2
Piero Sraffa’s neo-Marxist theory of value
and distribution 57
6 The work and life of Piero Sraffa 59

6.1 Sraffa’s life and work: a short overview 59
6.2 Sraffa as a Marxist 62
6.3 Sraffa’s circular flow model and some relevant results 67
6.3.1 Sraffa’s price equations 67
6.3.2 The standard system 68
6.3.3 Joint production 69
6.3.4 Switching and re-switching of production techniques 70
6.3.5 Basic and non-basic commodities 71
6.4 L ong road towards Production of Commodities by Means
of Commodities 73
7 Let one hundred schools of thought blossom …: some

major differences compared with Marx 89
7.1 Embodied labour as the substance of value 90
7.2 Sraffa’s wage rate and Marx’s social necessary consumption 94
7.3 T he rate of profits as derived from the system of physical input–
output flows 99
7.4 The role of “luxuries” and “non-basics” 103
7.5 Taking a “snapshot” or investigating the economy in normal
reproduction? 106
7.6 Joint production 109
7.7 Marx’s falling rate of profits and the organic composition
of capital 113
Appendix 1: Sraffa’s “non-basics” and Marx’s average
rate of profits 125
Appendix 2: T he inequalities approach of the labour theory of
value with normal reproduction 127
8 How were Sraffa’s theoretical insights received by the

Marxists? A timeline 130
8.1 The first reactions 130
8.2 T he early 1970s: intensifying discussions among Marxists 131
8.3 T he late 1970s: cold war, guerilla warfare, and attempts at
“peaceful coexistence” between Marxists and Sraffians 135
8.4 T he 1980s and after: digesting and revising the labour
theory of value 139
9 What to conclude? 152

Contents ix
PART 3
Joan Robinson: Modelling capitalist economic growth
with Marxist and neo-Marxist ingredients 157
10 Joan Robinson’s life: a short overview 160
11 Robinson’s theory of economic growth and

accumulation in a nutshell 171
11.1 Profits realisation mechanism 171
11.2 Capitalists’ “animal spirits” and their interaction with the
realisation mechanism 173
11.3 Factors constraining the maximum attainable rate of growth 175
11.4 Technical progress, equilibrium 177
11.5 L ogical time versus historical time – history versus equilibrium 179
11.6 Monopolisation, underconsumption, stagnation 181
12 Joan Robinson’s and Marx’s model and

concepts compared 185
12.1 Robinson’s “basic model” and Marx 186
12.2 Robinson’s production model and the Marx–Sraffa model 187
12.2.1 Labour as the sole unproduced factor of production 189
12.2.2 Homogeneous labour 190
12.2.3 Constant production coefficients 191
12.2.4 Closed economy 192
12.2.5 Reproduction schemes 192
12.3 Robinson’s normal prices and Marx’s prices of production 194
12.4 Robinson’s views on the labour theory of value 196
12.5 Real and nominal wage rates: “inflation barrier” 198
12.6 Robinson’s definitions of “surplus” 199
13 What is Joan Robinson’s indebtedness to Sraffa? 206

13.1 Sraffa’s 1926 Economic Journal article and his
1928–1929 lectures 206
13.2 Measurement of capital 207
13.3 An Essay on Marxian Economics 210
13.4 Sraffa’s introduction to Ricardo’s Principles 210
13.5 Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of
Commodities 212
14 Robinson’s model of economic growth compared with

Marx and the post-Keynesian neo-Marxists of the
1940s and 1950s 220
14.1 Rate of accumulation and Robinson’s “animal spirits” 220
x Contents
14.2 Rate of accumulation as a function of the expected rate of profits 223
14.3 Secular behaviour of the rate of profits 224
14.4 Technical progress 227
14.5 Conditions of steady economic growth 228
14.6 Monopoly capitalism, underconsumption, and stagnation 230
14.7 Underconsumption and stagnation: counteracting factors 234
15 What has remained of Robinson’s post-Keynesian

neo-Marxism? 238
Index 243
Figures
11.1 Interaction between profits realisation, profits expectations,

and the capitalist urge to accumulate 174
Preface
The year 2023 marks forty years since the death of Piero Sraffa and Joan
Robinson. Both iconic Cambridge economists were deeply inf luenced by the
economic theory of Karl Marx, and both integrated important elements of
Marx’s economic model into their work. In this volume, I will analyse Piero
Sraffa’s theory of value and distribution, and Joan Robinson’s theory of eco-
nomic growth, and I will argue that these theories belong to post-Keynesian
neo-Marxist economic thought of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s.
In the first decades of the twentieth century, only a few professional econ-
omists studied Marx’s Capital, and many scholars and observers with Marxist
sympathies had doubts about the correctness and relevance of Marx’s eco-
nomic theory. Some Marxists such as Rudolf Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg,
and Lenin had tried to analyse the impact of economic concentration but
came to opposite conclusions, in particular as to the future of capitalism.
The stock market crash of October 1929 and the Great Depression that fol-
lowed clearly showed the instability of the capitalist system. To many, it was
obvious that Jean-Baptiste Say’s loi des débouchés was a myth, and that Marx’s
“critique of political economy” had probably been on the right track. How-
ever, Marxists and non-Marxists alike lacked the tools for a thorough and
comprehensive, let alone a convincing, theoretical analysis of the ongoing
deep economic crisis, and of the policies needed to overcome the massive un-
employment. There was no theory as to how this crisis related to the working
of the capitalist system and the dominance of “big business”.
The role of effective demand at the macro-economic level in directing
economic activity was not understood. Despite all signs that the economic
depression that followed “Black Tuesday” (29 October 1929) was not just
another example of a short-run disequilibrium that would soon be forgotten,
mainstream economists repeated, as John Maynard Keynes had complained
in his Tract on Monetary Reform many years before, “that when the storm is
long past the ocean is f lat again”. On the other side, the mantra of orthodox
Marxists was that the crisis was a result of the operation Marx’s “law” of the
falling rate of profits, and that capitalists could only restore profitability by
reducing wages and increasing exploitation of labour.
xiv Preface
In 1931, both in Cambridge, UK, and in Warsaw, Poland, theories based
on the macro-economic role of effective demand were worked out by build-
ing on Marx’s reproduction schemes. In Cambridge, the famous Keynes and
his “circus” of young collaborators (among whom were Piero Sraffa and Joan
Robinson) were doing this unknowingly, whereas in Warsaw, an unknown
Marxist-oriented Michał Kalecki was building on these schemes. Thus were
laid the foundations of post-Keynesian neo-Marxist thinking.
Michał Kalecki was inspired by the views expressed by Rosa Luxemburg
in her discussion with Tugan-Baranovski on the role of “external markets”. It
led him to his theory of the Marxist “profits realisation mechanism”. In the
1940s and 1950s, this approach was further developed by Josef Steindl, and
it was also adopted in the work of Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy, in particu-
lar, in the bestseller Monopoly Capital that they co-authored. The theories of
these authors share a number of characteristics that distinguish them from the
original Marxist model: (1) a neglect, even an avoidance, of the labour theory
value, (2) a focus on “big business” and oligopolistic competition, (3) a view
of the nominal wage rate as determined by the balance of forces between
capital and labour, and not by a given subsistence wage level, (4) a rejection
of Marx’s idea of a tendentially falling rate of profits, and (5) a theory of eco-
nomic stagnation. When I use the term “post-Keynesian neo-Marxist” (or
occasionally “neo-Marxist” for short) economic theory, I refer to this current
in economic thought.
The intellectual development of this group of economists is reviewed in
Part 1. Based on published and unpublished evidence, their relationship and
interaction as peers are sketched. Using the correspondence between Paul
Baran and Paul Sweezy, for instance, we can follow how they both became
submerged in Kalecki’s as well as Steindl’s thinking, while they considered
these views insufficiently anchored into Marxist political economy. Unfor-
tunately, many personal interactions, including those with Joan Robinson
and Piero Sraffa, have remained undocumented. This first part also shows
how Robinson and Sraffa fit into this specific post-Keynesian neo-Marxist
current. They both built on the Classical (and Marxian) surplus concept and
showed, in Robinson’s case, how it can be integrated into a theory of eco-
nomic growth, based on insights of Keynes and Kalecki and, in Sraffa’s case,
into a theory of value.
After an overview of Sraffa’s life and his lifelong political affinity with the
Italian Communist Party, Part 2 investigates his relationship with Marxism.
Piero Sraffa developed his model, largely independently, as is evidenced by
his unpublished notes, but in line with some earlier work by von Bortkiewicz
on Ricardo and Marx, which was mostly unknown to the wider English-
speaking public of economists. I then compare his model and its assumptions
to that of Marx and discuss how it relates to post-Keynesian neo-Marxist
economic theory.
Part 3 is devoted to Joan Robinson’s theory of economic growth and its re-
lationship with the views of Marx and Kalecki. It starts with a brief biography,
Preface xv
followed by an overview of her theory. Next, I investigate how her theory of
economic growth built on Marx’s and Kalecki’s theoretical contributions and
how it is also related to the work of Steindl, Paul Baran, and Paul Sweezy. I
also look at Joan Robinson’s debts to Sraffa. Apart from the analysis of the
published work of these authors, I will also refer to their personal interac-
tions, using both published evidence and archival material.
The aim of Parts 2 and 3 is to show how Joan Robinson’s theory of eco-
nomic growth and the theory of value and distribution of Piero Sraffa both
have similar post-Keynesian neo-Marxist characteristics, but that the full in-
tegration of the two theories has remained unfinished. In the economics
profession, however, this aspect of their work is neglected. As things stand
today, Joan Robinson’s contributions are regarded as just post Keynesian
(without hyphen between “post” and “Keynesian” to indicate that the orig-
inal post-Keynesian current became amalgamated with that of institutional
and radical economics into what is known today as “heterodox economics”),
while Sraffa’s work is characterised as neo-Ricardian.
The three parts of this book have been written in such a way that they can
be read independently of each other.
In the past 50 years, I have studied the work of these economists, but never
came to writing up the results of my research. There was always a reason to
delay, for instance a new publication that had appeared, particularly after the
opening of the Sraffa archive at the Wren Library, Cambridge, UK. In fact,
it was only when Geoff Harcourt wrote the preface to my book The Economic
Ideas of Marx’s Capital (2017) that I finally made up my mind to bring all the
material together. I owe him my deep gratitude. The manuscript of this book
was already with the publishers when I was informed that Geoff had passed
away on 7 December 2021. Along with his many friends, students, and col-
leagues, I have lost a mentor. A mentor who was full of humour, but who
was also always available for comments on drafts of papers, and who would
generously offer advice and point to sources and documents that should be
read or consulted.
I was very fortunate in being able to discuss my views on her work with
Joan Robinson in person during visits to Cambridge in 1977 and 1980. How-
ever, by the time I contacted Piero Sraffa, hoping for a meeting and possibly
access to some of his notes, he was already suffering from memory loss. Any-
way, knowing what we know today from the unpublished papers and docu-
ments in the Sraffa archive about his extreme reticence to discuss his research,
it would have probably been futile to have such meetings.
A number of my peers read drafts of the chapters and made most useful
comments. I am much indebted to Riccardo Bellofiore, Scott Carter, John
Bellamy Foster, Heinz Kurz, Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, Glenn Rayp, and
Marc Vandoorne. None of them, however, can be held responsible for the
views expressed in the pages that follow.
I am grateful to Lord Eatwell for his permission to quote from the Sraffa
Papers, to Stanford University Archives for support in accessing the Paul
xvi Preface
Alexander Baran Archive and quoting from the papers, and to the Universi-
tätsbibliothek der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien for allowing access to the Steindl-
Sweezy correspondence, however scanty this was.
Part 2 of this volume is a revised and enlarged version of a chapter that was
published earlier in a Festschrift with Lexxion. I am grateful for being granted
permission to use it.
Finally, I also wish to thank New Left Review for permission to use copy-
right material of Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1, translated by Ben Fowkes,
Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1976; Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 2, translated by
David Fernbach, London, 1978; and Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 3, translated
by David Fernbach, London, 1981.
Part 1
Post-Keynesian neo-
Marxism: the trajectory
When Paul Sweezy, the famous éminence grise of the Marxist economists, de-
livered his Marshall Lecture at Cambridge University in 1971, he reviewed
the “alternative approaches” to the “late capitalist reality” and organised
them under three headings: the heterodox bourgeois, the traditional Marxist,
and the neo-Marxist (Sweezy, 1971: 30). When he then elaborated on the
neo-Marxist approach, he stated that he was “not particularly wedded to the
label” and explained:
I use it not to designate a group which is in some sense less genuinely

Marxist than others – though clearly some may be – but rather a group
which is less convinced of the adequacy of Marxist theory as it has been
inherited from the past.
(Sweezy, 1971: 39).
Indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, it seemed as if a distinct, fresh current in eco-
nomic thought was forming. This new current originated in the application
of John Maynard Keynes’s insights on macro-economic mechanisms to the
theories of Karl Marx about the working of the capitalist economic system
and the appropriate way to analyse that system. The main proponents of
this new approach were convinced that capitalism had changed dramatically
since Marx’s time. During much of the nineteenth century, capitalism had
been based on cut-throat competition between capitalist enterprises. This
had changed in the twentieth century; many markets were now dominated
by just a few large capitalist players.
Together with the theoretical challenges that the realities of modern
capitalism posed, Marxist economic theory was also challenged by the
theoretical and methodological problems related to how Marx had “trans-
formed” his values of Volume I of Capital into the prices of production of
Volume III.
The changes in capitalism had evidently not gone unnoticed by Marxists.
In Das Finanzkapital (1910), Rudolf Hilferding had elaborated on how the
rise of corporate capitalism is an inevitable consequence of the competitive
DOI: 10.4324/9781003283416-1
2 Post-Keynesian neo-Marxism: the trajectory
advantages of large-scale production, which, in turn, pushes the banks into
becoming major shareholders of the joint stock companies. He argued that
the “development of capitalist industry produces concentration of banking,
and this concentrated banking system is itself an important force in attaining
the highest stage of capitalist concentration in cartels and trusts” (Hilferd-
ing, 1981: 223). This concentration, in his opinion, changed the nature of
economic crises with “the disruption of credit (…) not (…) as complete as in
crises of the early period of capitalism” (Hilferding, 1981: 290). He further
argued that cartels do not eliminate crises: they divert the main burden of
a crisis to the non-cartelised industries. And with the increasing cartelisa-
tion, the role of the capitalist state in safeguarding the domestic markets
from foreign competition, as well as in promoting the penetration of foreign
markets, becomes crucial. This, then, leads to the export of capital and
the struggle for foreign markets and economic territory, in other words, to
imperialism.
The changes in the nature of capitalism were also analysed by Rosa Lux-
emburg in her Die Akkumulation des Kapitals (1913). She looked into great
detail on the conditions for the expanded reproduction of the capitalist eco-
nomic system, which she saw as closely linked to the expansion of “effective
demand” (Luxemburg, 1913: 131). Her conclusion was that with the accu-
mulation of capital, the demand for consumer goods by the workers will lag
the increased output of these goods, that goes with the growth of the means
of production that are put in operation. This tendency towards “undercon-
sumption” can be neutralised as long as “external markets” exist. She, there-
fore, like Hilferding, pointed to the role played by the exports of capital to
the non-capitalist part of the world and by the struggles for territory between
imperialist powers, but, interestingly, also to the role of armaments spend-
ing as a kind of domestic or internal “external market” (Luxemburg, 1913:
458ff.).
Neither Hilferdings’s nor Luxemburg’s analysis investigated the nature it-
self of the competitive process between large companies, i.e., the “micro-
foundations of macroeconomics”. Since much of the dynamics in Marx’s
model of capitalism was based on competition, it was natural to conclude that
the model needed revision as a result of the emergence of oligopolistic firms.
In 1926, in a seminal paper published in the Economic Journal, the otherwise
unknown Piero Sraffa wrote that in Marshallian economic theory, the idea
of a downward sloping average cost curve due to a “greater internal division
of labour, which is rendered possible by an increase in the dimensions of an
individual firm, was entirely abandoned, as it was seen to be incompatible
with competitive conditions” (Sraffa, 1926: 537–538). The author argued that
“external economies but internal to the industry”, i.e., the economies that
were supposed to lead to the downward sloping part of the cost curve of the
companies under consideration, “constitute precisely the class which is most
seldom to be met with” (Sraffa, 1926: 540) and concluded with the necessity
“to abandon the path of free competition and turn in the opposite direction,
namely, towards monopoly” (Sraffa, 1926: 542). He suggested that the actual
conditions in industries
generally do not fit exactly one or other of the categories, but will be
found scattered along the intermediate zone, and that the nature of an
industry will approximate more closely to the monopolist or the compet-
itive system according to its particular circumstances, such as whether the
number of autonomous undertakings in it is larger or smaller, or whether
or not they are bound together by partial agreements, etc.
(Sraffa, 1926: 542)
At Cambridge, Sraffa’s paper resulted in new and intense research on “im-

perfect competition”. Joan Robinson started in 1930 what was to become
her The Economics of Imperfect Competition. The book came out in 1933, and
in the same year, in the United States, Edward Chamberlin’s The Theory of
Monopolistic Competition was published.1 In the foreword to her book, Rob-
inson stated:
Mr. Sraffa’s article must be regarded as the fount from which my work
f lows, for the chief aim of this book is to attempt to carry out his preg-
nant suggestion that the whole theory of value should be treated in terms
of monopoly analysis.
(Robinson, 1933: xiii)
The theoretical as well as the more empirical and descriptive work on oligop-
olies and monopolistic competition, further strengthened the belief among
Marxist-oriented economists that capitalism had entered a new phase and that
Marx’s theory had to be revised. With the publication of Keynes’s The General
Theory of Employment, Interest and Money in 1936 and the spread of its ideas,
some of these economists, mainly under the inf luence of Michał Kalecki’s
views, analysed the economics of “monopoly capitalism” and formulated the-
ories that I will henceforth refer to as “post-Keynesian neo-Marxist”. Apart
from Kalecki, mention should be made of Josef Steindl, Paul M. Sweezy, and
Paul A. Baran.
It is true that today “post-Keynesian neo-Marxism” cannot be considered
as a separate school of thought but is part of the post-Keynesian heterodox
school. However, as I also showed elsewhere (Cuyvers, 2017), the ideas and
hypotheses put forward by its main representatives, particularly in the 1950s
and 1960s, were very important in shaping post-Keynesianism. These au-
thors aimed at explaining the stagnation of the mature capitalist economies
and the role of imperialism, by integrating Keynesian and Marxian insights
(Cogoy, 1987). Since then, neo-Marxist insights have been evolving and au-
thors working along these lines, first and foremost, now consider themselves
post Keynesians – the drop of the hyphen between “post” and “Keynesian”
marks the difference with the original post Keynesians. One should not for-
get that we are living in the post-Soviet bloc era and that ideological stances
have changed. At present, the vast majority of the post Keynesians who are
sympathetic to Marx’s work (many of them are much less sympathetic) will
probably agree with Geoff Harcourt who always stressed the line of descent
going from Marx to Sraffa and argued that “the Marxian stream is the most
appropriate one, both for interpreting Sraffa’s own views and inclinations”
(Harcourt, 2018: 89).
What was largely, although not entirely, left untouched by the second-
generation Marxists such as Hilferding or Luxemburg,2 was Marx’s theory
of value and of exploitation. Of course, some well-known critics of Marx’s
economic theories had pointed to the “the transformation problem”, i.e., how
the values of Volume I of Marx’s Capital are transformed into the prices of
production of Volume III. This problem that was considered as a serious
theoretical inconsistency, received its importance, because of the 1896 es-
say by von Böhm-Bawerk, Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems (von Böhm-
Bawerk, 1896), after he had already stated in his Kapital und Kapitalzins,
well before Volume III of Capital was published, that Marx’s transformation
problem was insolvable and that Marx knew it could not be solved (von
Böhm-Bawerk, 1890: 389–390). In the early years of the twentieth century,
a number of economists explored a mathematical treatment of Ricardo’s
(and hence Marx’s) theory of value. We find this, for instance, in 1904, in
the work of Dmitriev (1974), and in 1906–1907, in that of von Bortkiewicz
(1949). Both “neo-Ricardians” “translated” Ricardo’s theory of value into a
system of simultaneous equations, from which they mathematically derived
several of Ricardo’s propositions. von Bortkiewicz in particular subjected
Marx’s “labour values solution” of the problem of the transformation of val-
ues into prices of production, to a thorough investigation. 3 After one of his
1907 papers was published in English translation in 1949 by Paul Sweezy
(von Bortkiewicz, 1907), together with Hilferding’s reply to Böhm-Bawerk,
Bortkiewicz’s work became the starting point for the vast literature on the
transformation problem. His approach was, however, already known to Piero
Sraffa who continued in the early 1940s his earlier attempts at formulating a
system of equations on which to build his model (Gehrke and Kurz, 2006)
and to correct Marx’s theory of value.4
Bibliography
E. von Böhm-Bawerk (1890). Capital and Interest – A Critical History of Economical
Theory, London-New York: Macmillan.
E. von Böhm-Bawerk (1896). “Karl Marx and the Close of His System”, in: P.M.
Sweezy (Ed.), Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
& Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx by Rudolf Hilferding, together with an Appendix
consisting of an Article by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz on the Transformation of Values into
Prices of Production in the Marxian System, New York: August M. Kelley, 1949.
L. von Bortkiewicz (1907). “On the Correction of Marx’s Fundamental Theoretical
Construction in the Third Volume of Capital”, in: P.M. Sweezy (Ed.), Karl Marx
and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk & Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of
Marx by Rudolf Hilferding, together with an Appendix consisting of an Article by Ladislaus
von Bortkiewicz on the Transformation of Values into Prices of Production in the Marxian
System, New York: August M. Kelley, 1949.
E.H. Chamberlin (1933). Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
M. Cogoy (1987). “Neo-Marxist Theory, Marx, and the Accumulation of Capital”,
International Journal of Political Economy, 17(2), Summer 1987, 11–37.
L. Cuyvers (2017). The Economic Ideas of Marx’s Capital – Steps Towards Post-Keynesian
Economics, London-New York: Routledge.
V.K. Dmitriev (1974). Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
C. Gehrke & H.D. Kurz (2006). “Sraffa on von Bortkiewicz: Reconstructing the
Classical Theory of Value and Distribution”, History of Political Economy, 38(1),
91–149.
G.C. Harcourt (2018). “The Role of Sraffa Prices in Post-Keynesian Pricing The-
ory”, in: M. Corsi, J. Kregel & C. D’ippoliti (Eds.). Classical Economics Today –
Essays in Honor of Alessandro Roncaglia, London: Anthem Press.
R. Hilferding (1904). “Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx”, in: P.M. Sweezy (Ed.),
Karl Marx and the Close of his System, By Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Böhm-Bawerk’s
Criticism of Marx, By Rudolf Hilferding, New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1949.
R. Hilferding (1981). Finance Capital. A Study of the Latest Phase of Capitalist Develop-
ment, London, Boston – Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
R. Luxemburg (1913). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1951.
R. Luxemburg (2013). “Practical Economics: Volume 3 of Marx’s Capital”, in: P.
Hudis (Ed.), The Complete Works of Rosa Luxemburg. Volume I, Economic Writings
1, London-New York: Verso.
J. Robinson (1933). The Economics of Imperfect Competition, London: Macmillan.
M. Smith (2017). “Some Notes on the Reception of Ricardo’s Principles in the
Non-English-Speaking World”, Contributions to Political Economy, 36, 43–60.
P. Sraffa (1926). “The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions”, Economic
Journal, 36(144), December, 535–550.
P.M. Sweezy (1971). “On the Theory of Monopoly Capitalism”, in: P.M. Sweezy
(Ed.), Modern Capitalism and other Essays, New York-London: Monthly Review
Press, 1972.
1 The core of Marx’s
economics and the
monopolisation of
capitalism: an introduction
to some major issues
In his economic theory, Marx attempted to demonstrate, with the labour the-
ory of value of the Classical economists as his point of departure, that profits in
the capitalist system are the result of exploitation of the working class. He also
argued that the accumulation of these profits results in the economic expan-
sion of the entire economic system, but he also proved what the limits of this
expansion are. From this, a theory was derived that explains the accumulation
process and also indicates how the exploitation of the working class changes
over the economic cycle. Marx also stated that labour in the production pro-
cess is systematically replaced by machines, which, he argued, leads to a ten-
dential fall in the rate of profits. This fall in the rate of profits, in combination
with the increase in the production of consumer goods that outstrips the rise in
wages and in demand, will result in long-term economic stagnation.
In short, the core of the reasoning that Marx set up is the following:
1 Workers produce using the means of production owned by capitalists.
2 All value is produced by labour and hence by the workers.
3 However, workers produce more value – surplus value – than they re-
ceive as compensation for their labour. This compensation, their wages,
are related to a given social norm.
4 What workers produce above their wages is surplus, which will go to
capitalists as profits, after deduction of what is needed for (for example)
the state apparatus.
In addition, Marx made an impressive attempt to make his model

dynamic. He proceeded as follows:
1 Capitalists, both individually and collectively, have an insatiable hunger
for profits and accumulation.
2 Each capitalist tries to appease his hunger for profits by maximising the
surplus value extracted from workers.
3 The squeezing of wages is the most important instrument for maximis-
ing the surplus value.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003283416-2
Introduction 7
4 Wages will be squeezed by replacing labour with capital/means of pro-
duction (the mechanisation of production). The use of less labour will
constrain the production of surplus value in the long run.
5 The squeezing of wages in capitalism generates a tendency to undercon-
sume and overproduce, which, in contemporary economics jargon, is
known as a lack of effective demand.5 As a result, the realisation of the
surplus value that is produced will also be constrained.
6 As a result of the proportionate decline in surplus value and profits, and
the increase in capital, there will be a tendency for the rate of profits to
fall.
Marx’s assumption that capitalists are showing an unlimited hunger for

profits and for accumulation, i.e., that they invest as much as possible and
consume as little as possible, had already been questioned by Veblen in
his ref lections on the “leisure class” and of “conspicuous consumption”
(Veblen, 1899). Moreover, by stressing that capitalists are ploughing back
into their businesses a maximum amount of surplus value, Marx mostly
assumed that investment is not (or hardly) affected by expectations for the
rate of return. If this expected rate of return is low, will they still invest?
How do the investment decisions of capitalists, operating in a competitive
economic system, differ from those in monopoly capitalism? To what ex-
tent do we have to amend Marx’s model and his main conclusions if the
monopolisation of capitalism is considered? Such issues have been analysed
and debated among Marxists. In the rest of this chapter, I merely list them,
without going into much detail. They will be discussed later in the follow-
ing chapters.6
In Volume I of Capital, Marx had made an analysis of the capitalist system
in terms of his labour theory of value. However, in Volume III, he had to
work out a procedure of transforming the labour values of Volume I into the
prices of production that would result in a uniform rate of profits across the
production sectors. As was hinted at by von Böhm-Bawerk (1890: 389–390)
before the publication of Volume III of Marx’s Capital, and as it soon became
clear after, Marx’s “transformation” of values into prices of production was
rejected by scholars such as von Böhm-Bawerk (1896) and von Bortkiewicz
(1907). For many researchers – evidently not for “true Marxists” – this was
sufficient to avoid referring to labour values or to Marx’s “law of value”.
Moreover, with oligopolistic firms becoming dominant, it was hard to rec-
oncile to a theory of capitalism, especially the “mark-up pricing” behaviour
of such companies with equilibrium prices that were the outcome of a com-
petitive process of equalisation of the rate of profits, as implied by Marx’s
“prices of production”. Many scholars who wanted to apply Marx’s meth-
ods to analyse “monopoly capitalism”, therefore, either rejected the labour
theory of value, or simply neglected it. It should not be forgotten that la-
bour values are “underlying” Marx’s prices of production, and are therefore
not observable and not falsifiable, making them an easy target for positivist
mockery. The critics of Marx appeared immune to the accusation of being
“vulgar economists”.
Marx’s theory of exploitation also came under attack. With the apparent
invalidation of his labour theory of value, the concept of the exploitation of
workers on the factory f loor by extracting surplus labour was also refuted.
How would one interpret Marx’s “value of labour power” if the labour the-
ory of value is redundant or even invalid? In addition, wages in Marx’s day
might have corresponded to a bare subsistence level, but since then, labour
unions have been successfully negotiating wages that often increased in line
with labour productivity (see e.g., Wilkinson, 1988). At the macro-level,
the share of wages in national income was therefore to an important extent
inf luenced by the balance of forces between capital and labour. In addition,
as John Maynard Keynes had argued, in contrast to Marx’s views that linked
the movement of real wages to that of the unemployed in the “reserve army
of labour”, that the real wage rate moved countercyclically over the business
cycle. He stated: “The fact that wages tend to be sticky in terms of money,
the money-wage being more stable than the real wage, tends to limit the
readiness of the wage-unit to fall in terms of money” (Keynes, 1936: 232).
He also found that
the facts do not support the recently prevailing assumptions as to the

relative movements of real wages and output, and are inconsistent with
the idea of there being any marked tendency to increasing unit-profit
with increasing output. Indeed, (…) the result remains a bit of a miracle.
(Keynes, 1936: 409)
Kalecki, in turn, argued that the wage share remained roughly constant over
business cycles, based on his assumed oligopolistic mark-up pricing: “A rise
in the degree of monopoly or in raw material prices in relation to unit wage
costs causes a fall of the relative share of wages in the value added” (Kalecki,
1952: 29), with the degree of monopoly and the relative prices of raw materi-
als negatively correlated with increasing and decreasing demand.
With the spread of Keynes’s theory of effective demand within the ranks
of left-wing economists, it became accepted that the factors determining
national income were consumer and investment spending. If total wages
are given, this implies that profits are determined by capitalists’ spending.
“Workers spend what they get, but capitalists get what they spend”, quipped
Michał Kalecki, referring to Marx’s mechanisms for “surplus value reali-
sation”, that were analysed in Volume II of Capital, but had been unduly
overlooked by Marxists (with Rosa Luxemburg as an exception). Moreover,
profits cannot be increased at the macro-level by squeezing wages: reducing
wages as a way of overcoming an economic crisis will reduce effective de-
mand further and deepen the crisis (unless accompanied by a larger increase
in capitalist spending). Kalecki had inherited much from Rosa Luxemburg,
Introduction 9
who had emphasised the importance of sufficient “effective demand” for the
realisation of the surplus value in her Die Akkumulation des Kapitals:
There may (…) be a desire to accumulate in both departments, yet the

desire to accumulate plus the technical prerequisites of accumulation is
not enough in a capitalist economy of commodity production. A further
condition is required to ensure that accumulation can in fact proceed and
production expand: the effective demand for commodities must also increase.
(Luxemburg, 1913: 131 – My italics)
Because this “effective demand” is lacking, there is a problem of the sale of

the ever-increasing production, i.e., a contradiction between the growing
production capacity and the limited consumption possibilities (a contradic-
tion that was also emphasised by Marx).
Finally, Marx’s tendentially falling rate of profits came under attack. In Vol-
ume III of Capital, Marx had argued at length that during the process of capital-
ist development, each individual capitalist’s attempt to reduce labour costs and
increase labour productivity would lead to the introduction of labour-saving
and capital-using technical innovations. This will allow the capitalist to reap
“surplus profits”. However, all capitalist producers are doing the same. As a re-
sult, in the economy as a whole, constant capital will be substituted for labour,
thus increasing the “organic composition of capital”, which, in turn, will lead
to a fall in the general rate of profits. Marx listed several factors counteracting
this falling rate of profits, thus transforming it into a tendency.
Strikingly, in her Accumulation of Capital, Rosa Luxemburg hardly paid
attention to the tendency of the general rate of profits to fall in the long run.
In a numerical example, using a Marxian scheme of reproduction and illus-
trating the effect of the accumulation of capital on the sectoral outputs, she
let the composition of capital and the rate of surplus value increase in such a
way that the general rate of profits remains constant (Luxemburg, 1913: 337).
Further research into the question where and when exactly the ingredi-
ents of post-war neo-Marxist economic thinking originated is needed. What
we can say is that some of these ingredients are found in the work of Rosa
Luxemburg and, as I argued elsewhere, in, for instance, the 1930–1935 eco-
nomic articles of the Marxist dissenter Henri De Man. Until 1933, De Man
was professor at the University of Frankfurt and author of Zur Psychologie des
Sozialismus (1926), a book that had caused sensation, but also indignation,
among socialists in Europe (Cuyvers, 2015).
Notes
1 In fact, Chamberlin’s book was a completely rewritten version of the doctoral
thesis that he submitted at Harvard University in 1925 (Chamberlin, 1933: xi),
and his research was unrelated to Sraffa’s 1926 article.
2 See Hilferding (1904) and Luxemburg’s unpublished work, such as Luxemburg
(2013).
3 On Dmitriev’s and von Bortkiewicz’s contributions from a historical perspective,
see Smith (2017).
4 Sraffa’s notes on von Bortkiewicz were mainly written between January and
April 1943. See Sraffa Papers D1.91: 9r–33r that can be consulted at https://
mss-cat.trin.cam.ac.uk/manuscripts/uv/view.php?n=Sraffa.D1.91#?c=0&m=
0&s=0&cv=11&xywh=-218%2C0%2C5351%2C2767
5 John Bellamy Foster rightly pointed out to me in private correspondence the
term “underconsumption” is not useful in relation to Marxist analysis unless
the Schumpeterian definition is adopted as encompassing effective demand-type
theories. Sweezy famously advanced in his The Theory of Capitalist Development
(1942) an underconsumptionist analysis but abandoned the term altogether in the
1950s. See the Editors’ remark in Penzner, Magdoff, and Sweezy (2013).
6 For an excellent overview and a deeper discussion of the main issues, I refer to
Baran and Sweezy (2012), which is a missing chapter of the authors’ Monopoly
Capital (1966).
Bibliography
P.A. Baran & P.M. Sweezy (2012). “Some Theoretical Implications”, Monthly Review,
64(3), July–August.
E. von Böhm-Bawerk (1890). Capital and Interest – A Critical History of Economical
Theory, London – New York: Macmillan.
E. von Böhm-Bawerk (1896). “Karl Marx and the Close of His System”, in: P.M.
Sweezy (Ed.), Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
& Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx by Rudolf Hilferding, together with an Appendix
consisting of an Article by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz on the Transformation of Values into
Prices of Production in the Marxian System, New York: August M. Kelley, 1949.
L. von Bortkiewicz (1904). “On the Correction of Marx’s Fundamental Theoretical
Construction in the Third Volume of Capital”, in: P.M. Sweezy (Ed.), Karl Marx
and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk & Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of
Marx by Rudolf Hilferding, together with an Appendix consisting of an Article by Ladislaus
von Bortkiewicz on the Transformation of Values into Prices of Production in the Marxian
System, New York: August M. Kelley, 1949.
L. Cuyvers (2015). “Was Henri de Man an Early Post-Keynesian Neo-Marxist?”,
Review of Radical Political Economics, 47(1), 90–105.
M. Kalecki (1952). The Theory of Economic Dynamics – An Essay on Cyclical and Long
Run Changes in Capitalist Economy, London: Allen and Unwin, 1965 (revised sec-
ond print).
J.M. Keynes (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in: A. Rob-
inson and D. Moggridge (Eds.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol.
VII, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for The Royal Economic Society,
1973.
R. Luxemburg (1913). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1951.
J. Penzner, H. Magdoff & P.M. Sweezy (2013). “Capitalism and the Fallacy of Crude
Underconsumptionism”, Monthly Review, 64(8), January.
T. Veblen (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions,
London: Routledge, 1991.
F. Wilkinson (1988). “Where Do We Go from Here? Real Wages, Effective De-
mand and Economic Development”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 12(1), March,
179–191.
The core of Marx's economics and the monopolisation of capitalism: an
introduction to some major issues
P.A. Baran & P.M. Sweezy (2012). “Some Theoretical Implications”, Monthly Review, 64(3),
July–August.
E. von Böhm-Bawerk (1890). Capital and Interest – A Critical History of Economical Theory,
London – New York: Macmillan.
E. von Böhm-Bawerk (1896). “Karl Marx and the Close of His System”, in: P.M. Sweezy (Ed.),
Karl Marx and the Close of His System by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk & Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism
of Marx by Rudolf Hilferding, together with an Appendix consisting of an Article by Ladislaus von
Bortkiewicz on the Transformation of Values into Prices of Production in the Marxian System,
New York: August M. Kelley, 1949.
L. von Bortkiewicz (1904). “On the Correction of Marx’s Fundamental Theoretical Construction
in the Third Volume of Capital”, in: P.M. Sweezy (Ed.), Karl Marx and the Close of His System
by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk & Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx by Rudolf Hilferding, together
with an Appendix consisting of an Article by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz on the Transformation of
Values into Prices of Production in the Marxian System, New York: August M. Kelley, 1949.
L. Cuyvers (2015). “Was Henri de Man an Early Post-Keynesian Neo-Marxist?”, Review of
Radical Political Economics, 47(1), 90–105.
M. Kalecki (1952). The Theory of Economic Dynamics – An Essay on Cyclical and Long Run
Changes in Capitalist Economy, London: Allen and Unwin, 1965 (revised second print).
J.M. Keynes (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in: A. Robinson
and D. Moggridge (Eds.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. VII, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press for The Royal Economic Society, 1973.
R. Luxemburg (1913). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951.
T. Veblen (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, London:
Routledge, 1991.
F. Wilkinson (1988). “Where Do We Go from Here? Real Wages, Effective Demand and
Economic Development”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 12(1), March, 179–191.
The Oxbridge connection: Sraffa, Kalecki, Steindl

N. Baran & J.B. Foster (Eds.) (2017). The Age of Monopoly Capital – Selected Correspondence
between Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy, 1949–1964, New York: Monthly Review Press.
L. Cuyvers (1983–1984). “Erwin Rothbarth’s Life and Work”, Journal of Post Keynesian
Economics, 6(2), Winter, 305–312.
V.K. Dmitriev (1974). Economic Essays on Value, Competition and Utility, Cambridge:
G.C. Harcourt (1972). Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital, Cambridge:
M. Kalecki (1943). “Political Aspects of Full Employment”, in: J. Osiatyn˙ski (Ed.), Collected
Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume I: Capitalism – Business Cycles and Full Employment, Oxford:
Clarendon Press: 347–356.
M. Kalecki (1962). “Observations on the Theory of Growth”, Economic Journal, 72(285), March,
134–153.
M. Kalecki (1967). “The Problem of Effective Demand with Tugan-Baranovsky and Rosa
Luxemburg”, in: J. Osiatyn˙ski (Ed.), Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume II: Capitalism –
Economic Dynamics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991: 451–458.
M. Kalecki (1968a). “The Marxian Equations of Reproduction and Modern Economics”, in: J.
Osiatyn˙ski (Ed.), Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume II: Capitalism – Economic
Dynamics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991: 459–466.
M. Kalecki (1968b). “Trend and Business Cycles Reconsidered”, Economic Journal, 78(310),
June, 263–276.
M. Kalecki (1990). Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume I: Capitalism – Business Cycles
and Full Employment (J. Osiatyn˙ski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
M. Kalecki (1991). Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume II: Capitalism – Economic
Dynamics (J. Osiatyn˙ski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
M. Kalecki (1996). Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume 6: Studies in Applied Economics,
1927–1941 (J. Osiatyn˙ski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
M. Kalecki, T. Kowalik & K. Secomski (1969). “The Economics of Edward Lipin˙ski”, in: J.
Osiatyn˙ski (Ed.), Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume 7: Studies in Applied Economics,
1940–1967: Miscellanea, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997: 335–373.
P. Kriesler & J. Halevi (2020). “Kalecki and Marx Reconnected”, Review of Political Economy,
32(4), 604–614.
E. Lipin˙ski (1977). “Michal Kalecki”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 39(1),
February, 69–77.
M.C. Marcuzzo (2005). “Piero Sraffa at the University of Cambridge”, European Journal of the
History of Economic Thought, 12(3), September, 425–452.
N. Naldi (2012). “Two Notes on Piero Sraffa and Antonio Gramsci”, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 36(6), Special Issue: New Perspectives on the Work of Piero Sraffa, November,
1401–1415.
J. Robinson (1942). An Essay on Marxian Economics, London: Macmillan, 1967 (2nd ed.).
K.W. Rothschild (2012). “Roots – Reflections on Josef Steindl’s First Article in an Economic
Journal”, PSL Quarterly Review, 65(261), 117–133.
N. Shapiro (2000). “Josef Steindl (1912–1993)”, in: P. Arestis & M.C. Sawyer (Eds.), A
Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar,
629–635.
T. Shenk (2013). Maurice Dobb: Political Economist, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
P. Sraffa (1926). “The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions”, Economic Journal,
36(144), December, 535–550.
P. Sraffa (1960). Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities – Prelude to a Critique
of Economic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
J. Steindl (1952). Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
J. Steindl (1964). “On Maturity in Capitalist Economies”, in: Problems of Economic Dynamics
and Planning: Essays in Honour of Michal Kalecki, Warszawa: PWN-Polish Scientific
Publishers.
J. Steindl (1967). “Capitalism, Science and Technology”, in: C.H. Feinstein (Ed.), Socialism,
Capitalism and Economic Growth – Essays presented to Maurice Dobb, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 198–205.
J. Steindl (1979). “Stagnation Theory and Stagnation Policy”, Cambridge Journal of Economics,
3(1), March, 1–14.
J. Steindl (2005). “Trend and Cycle”, in: T. Mott & N. Shapiro (Eds.), Rethinking Capitalist
Development – Essays on the Economics of Josef Steindl, London-New York: Routledge,
140–148.
J. Toporowski (2013). Michał Kalecki: An Intellectual Biography. 1, Rendezvous in Cambridge
1899–1939, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
J. Toporowski (2018). Michał Kalecki: An Intellectual Biography. 2, By Intellect Alone,
The other side of the Atlantic
P.A. Baran (1953). “Economic Progress and Economic Surplus”, Science & Society, 17(4), Fall,
289–317.
P.A. Baran (1957). The Political Economy of Growth, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973.
P.A. Baran & P.M. Sweezy (1966). Monopoly Capital, New York: Monthly Review Press.
R. Bellofiore (2019). “Between Schumpeter and Keynes: The Heterodoxy of Paul Marlor
Sweezy and the Orthodoxy of Paul Mattick”, Continental Thought & Theory, 1(4), 72–111.
M.F. Bleany (1976). Underconsumption Theories: A History and Critical Analysis, New York:
International Publishers.
M. Bronfenbrenner (1966). “Monopoly Capitalism: A Revised Revisionism”, Journal of Political
Economy, 74(5), October, 500–505.
L. Cuyvers (1971). “Beschouwingen bij een theorie van het ekonomisch surplus”, Vlaams
Marxistisch Tijdschrift, 6(2), June, 74–92.
L. Cuyvers (1972). “ De verspilling van het potentieel economisch surplus: een kwantitatieve
analyse”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen, 17(1), 51–78.
L. Cuyvers (1977). Marxistische en Neo-Marxistische kenmerken en invloeden in de
groeitheorie van Joan Robinson, Antwerp: Antwerp University, Ph.D. thesis. (DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.20055.50081).
Economics, London – New York: Routledge.
B. Feldman & J.B. Foster (2015). “Baran and Sweezy’s Monopoly Capital, Then and Now – An
Interview with John Bellamy Foster”, Monthly Review, 67(6), November.
J.B. Foster (2000). “Paul Marlor SWEEZY (born 1910)”, in: P. Arestis & M.C. Sawyer (Eds.), A
Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar,
642–651.
J.B. Foster (2004). “The Commitment of an Intellectual: Paul M. Sweezy (1910–2004)”, Monthly
Review, 56(5), October, 5–39.
J.B. Foster (2014). “Polish Marxian Political Economy and US Monopoly Capital Theory: The
Influence of Luxemburg, Kalecki and Lange on Baran and Sweezy and Monthly Review”, in: R.
Bellofiore, E. Karwowski & J. Toporowski (Eds.), The Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg, Oskar Lange
and Michał Kalecki, Volume 1 of Essays in Honour of Tadeusz Kowalik, Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Macmillan, 104–121.
J.K. Galbraith (1981). A Life in Our Times – Memoirs, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
M. Hillard (1985). “Harry Magdoff and Paul Sweezy: Biographical Notes”, in: S. Resnick & R.
Wolff (Eds.), Rethinking Marxism – Struggles in Marxist Theory – Essays for Harry Magdoff &
Paul Sweezy, Brooklyn: Automedia, 397–404.
M.C. Howard & J.E. King (1992). A History of Marxian Economics, 1929–1990, 2, London:
Macmillan.
N. Kaldor (1958). “The Political Economy of Growth by Paul A. Baran”, American Economic
Review, 48(1), March, 164–170.
M.A. Lebowitz (2004). “Paul M. Sweezy”, Monthly Review, 56(5), October, 40–68.
R.L. Meek (1967). “Monopoly Capital. An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order.
by P. A. Baran and P. M. Sweezy”, Economic Journal, 77(305), March, 114–116.
M. Reder, L. Tarshis & T. Smith (2010). Memorial Resolution: Paul A Baran,
https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:mh305vq8502/SC0193_MemorialResolution_BaranP.pdf
S. Savran, E.A. Tonak & P.M. Sweezy (1987). “Interview with Paul M. Sweezy”, Monthly
Review, 38(11), April, 1–28.
Macmillan.
J. Steindl (1964). “On Maturity in Capitalist Economies”, in: Problems of Economic Dynamics
and Planning: Essays in Honour of Michał Kalecki, Warszawa: PWN-Polish Scientific
Publishers.
P.M. Sweezy (1942). The Theory of Capitalist Development, London: Dennis Dobson, 1946.
P.M. Sweezy (1967). “Obstacles to Economic Development”, in: C.H. Feinstein (Ed.), Socialism,
Capitalism and Economic Growth – Essays presented to Maurice Dobb. Cambridge: Cambridge
F. Targetti (2000). “Nicholas Kaldor (1908–1986)”, in: P. Arestis & M.C. Sawyer (Eds.), A
Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting Economists, Cheltenham-Northampton: Edward Elgar,
343–352.
Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson: two directions of post-Keynesian neo-

Marxism
L. von Bortkiewicz (1907). “On the Correction of Marx’s Fundamental Theoretical Construction
in the Third Volume of Capital”, in: P.M. Sweezy (Ed.), Karl Marx and the Close of his System
by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk & Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx by Rudolf Hilferding, together
with an Appendix consisting of an Article by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz on the Transformation of
Values into Prices of Production in the Marxian System, New York: August M. Kelley, 1949,
199–221.
E.H. Chamberlin (1933). Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
L. Cuyvers (1979). “Joan Robinson’s Theory of Economic Growth”, Science & Society, 43(3),
Fall, 326–348.
G.R. Feiwel (1989). “Joan Robinson Inside and Outside the Stream”, in: G.R. Feiwel (Ed.), Joan
Robinson and Modern Economic Theory, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and London:
Macmillan.
R.M. Goodwin (1986). “Swinging along the Autostrada”, in: W. Semmler (Ed.), Competition,
Instability, and Nonlinear Cycles, Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer, 125–131.
G.C. Harcourt (1996). “Some Reflections on Joan Robinson’s Changes of Mind and their
Relationship to Post-Keynesianism and the Economics Profession”, in: M.C. Marcuzzo, L.L.
Pasinetti & A. Roncaglia (Eds.), The Economics of Joan Robinson, London – New York:
Routledge, 331–344.
N. Kaldor (1958). “The Political Economy of Growth by Paul A. Baran”, American Economic
Review, 48(1), March, 164–170.
M. Kalecki (1997). Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume 7: Studies in Applied Economics
1940–1967- Miscellanea (J. Osiatyn˙ski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
J.A. Kregel (1991). “The Organising Principle in Post-Keynesian Economics”, in: W. Adriaansen
& J. van der Linden (Eds.), Post-Keynesian Thought in Perspective, Groningen: Wolters-
Noordhof, 79–81.
M. Lavoie (2013). “Sraffians, other Post-Keynesians, and the Controversy over Centres of
Gravitation”, in: E.S. Levrero, A. Palumbo & A. Stirati (Eds.), Sraffa and the Reconstruction of
Economic Theory, 3, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 34–54.
J. von Neumann (1945–1946). “A Model of General Economic Equilibrium”, Review of
Economic Studies, 13(1), 1–9.
L.L. Pasinetti (1988). “Growing Subsystems, Vertically Hyper-integrated Sectors and the Labour
Theory of Value”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 12(1), 1988, 125–134.
S. Pratten (1996). “The “Closure” Assumption as a First Step: Neo-Ricardian Economics and
Post-Keynesianism”, Review of Social Economy, 54(4), Winter, 423–443.
J. Robinson (1956). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1962a). Essays on the Theory of Economic Growth, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1962b). Economic Philosophy, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books (1974 reprint).
J. Robinson (1965). “Statements by Friends and Associates”, Monthly Review, 16(11), March,
127.
J. Robinson (1966). Economics: An Awkward Corner, London: George Allen & Unwin.
J. Robinson (1970). Freedom and Necessity – An Introduction to the Study of Society, London:
Allen and Unwin.
J. Robinson (1977). “Michal Kalecki on the Economics of Capitalism”, Oxford Bulletin of
Economics & Statistics, 39(1), February, 7–17.
J. Robinson (1979a). Aspects of Development and Underdevelopment, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
J. Robinson (1979b). “Who is a Marxist?”, in: J. Robinson, Collected Economic Papers, 5,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 248–253.
A. Roncaglia (1995). “On the Compatibility between Keynes’s and Sraffa’s Viewpoints on
Output Levels”, in: G.C. Harcourt, A. Roncaglia & R. Rowley (Eds.), Income and Employment in
Theory and Practice – Essays in Memory of Athanasios Asimakopulos, New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 111–125.
C. Sardoni (1984). “Some Ties of Kalecki to the 1926 “Sraffian Manifesto””, Journal of Post-
Keynesian Economics, 6(3), Spring, 458–465.
36(144), December, 535–550.
J. Steindl (1945). Small and Big Business – Economic Problems of the Size of Firms, Institute of
Statistics Monograph No. 1, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
What remains of post-Keynesian neo-Marxist economics? An

unfinished integration
A. Bhaduri & J. Robinson (1980). “Accumulation and Exploitation: An Analysis in the Tradition of
Marx, Sraffa and Kalecki”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 4(2), June, 103–115.
L. Cuyvers (1972). “De verspilling van het potentieel economisch surplus: een kwantitatieve
analyse”, Tijdschrift voor Sociale Wetenschappen, 17(1), 51–78.
M. Dobb (1961). “An Epoch-Making Book”, Labour Monthly, 40, October, 487–491.
M. Dobb (1973). Theories of Value and Distribution since Adam Smith, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
J.B. Foster (2004). “The Commitment of an Intellectual: Paul M. Sweezy (1910–2004)”, Monthly
Review, 56(5), October, 5–39.
R.M. Goodwin (1986a). “Swinging along the Autostrada”, in: W. Semmler (Ed.), Competition,
Instability, and Nonlinear Cycles, Berlin – Heidelberg: Springer, 125–131.
R.M. Goodwin (1986b). “Swinging along the Turnpike with von Neumann and Sraffa”,
Cambridge Journal of Economics, 10(3), September, 203–210.
J. Halevi (1985). “The Contemporary Significance of Baran and Sweezy’s Notion of
Monopolistic Capitalism”, in: M. Jaruslic (Ed.), Money and Macro Policy, Leiden: Kluwer-Nijhoff
Publishers, 109–131.
H. Holleman, I.L. Stole, J.B. Foster & R.W. McChesney (2009). “The Sales Effort and Monopoly
Capital”, Monthly Review, 60(11), April.
M. Kalecki (1996). Collected Works of Michał Kalecki, Volume 6: Studies in Applied Economics,
1927–1941 (J. Osiatyn˙ski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
J.E. King (1995). “Outside the Mainstream”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(3), June,
463–475.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (1995). Theory of Production – A Long-Period Analysis, Cambridge:
T.E. Lambert (2020). “Monopoly Capital and Innovation: An Exploratory Assessment of R&D
Effectiveness”, International Review of Applied Economics, 34(1), 36–49.
T. Lambert & E. Kwon (2015). “Monopoly Capital and Capitalist Inefficiency”, International
Review of Applied Economics, 29(4), February, 533–552.
M. Lavoie (1995). “The Kaleckian Model of Growth and Distribution and Its Neo-Ricardian and
Neo-Marxian Critiques”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(6), December, 789–818.
R.L. Meek (1956). Studies in the Labour Theory of Value, London: Lawrence and Wishart,
1973.
R.L. Meek (1961). “Mr. Sraffa’s Rehabilitation of Classical Economics”, Scottish Journal of
Political Economy, 24(1), June, 36–52, republished in R.L. Meek (1967), Economics and
Ideology and Other Essays, London: Chapman and Hall, 161–178.
R.L. Meek (1977). “A Plain Person’s Guide to the Transformation Problem”, in: R.L. Meek (Ed.),
Smith, Marx, and After – Ten Essays in the Development of Economic Thought, London:
Chapman and Hall, 95–119.
T. Mott & N. Shapiro (Eds.) (2005). Rethinking Capitalist Development – Essays on the
Economics of Josef Steindl, London – New York: Routledge.
T. Riddell (1986). “Marxism and Military Spending”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 8(4),
Summer, 574–580.
A. Roncaglia (1978). Sraffa and the Theory of Prices, Chichester – New York – Brisbane –
Toronto: John Wiley & Sons.
A. Roncaglia (1991). “The Sraffian Schools”, Review of Political Economy, 3(2), 187–219.
Z.L. Sadowski & A. Szeworski (Eds.) (2004). Kalecki’s Economics Today, London – New York:
Routledge.
Review, 38(11), April, 1–28.
M.C. Sawyer (1985). The Economics of Michał Kalecki, Houndmills, Basingstoke – London:
Macmillan.
R. Stanfield (1973). The Economic Surplus and Neo-Marxism, Lexington: D.C. Heath & Co.
I. Steedman (1977). Marx After Sraffa, London: New Left Books.
J. Steindl (1981). “A Personal Portrait of Michal Kalecki”, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,
3(4), Summer, 590–596.
J. Steindl (1990). Economic Papers 1941–88, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
J. Toporowski (2013). Michał Kalecki: An Intellectual Biography. 1, Rendezvous in Cambridge
The work and life of Piero Sraffa3
G. Abraham-Frois & E. Berrebi (1997). Prices, Profits and Rhythms of Accumulation,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
M. Ahijado (1985). Piero Sraffa: Notas para una biografía intellectual, Madrid: Centro de
Estudios Universitarios RamÓn Areces.
R. Arena & S. Blankenburg (2013). “Sraffa, Keynes, and Post-Keynesians: Suggestions for a
Synthesis in the Making”, in: G.C. Harcourt & P. Kriesler (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Post-
Keynesian Economics, 1: Theory and Origins, 60–79.
R. Arthmar & M. McLure (2019). “Sraffa, Myrdal, and the 1961 Söderström Gold Medal”,
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 121(2), 843–853.
R. Bellofiore (2008). “Sraffa after Marx: An Open Issue”, in: G. Chiodi & L. Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or
an Alternative Economics, Basingstoke – New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 68–92.
R. Bellofiore (2010). “Sraffa and Marx: A Reopening of the Debate”,
http://host.uniroma3.it/eventi/sraffaconference2010/abstracts/pp_bellofiore.pdf
R. Bellofiore (2012). “The ‘Tiresome Objector’ and Old Moor: A Renewal of the Debate on Marx
after Sraffa based on the Unpublished Material at the Wren Library”, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 36(6), November, 1385–1399.
R. Bellofiore (2014). “The Loneliness of the Long Distance Thinker: Sraffa, Marx, and the
Critique of Economic Theory”, in: R. Bellofiore & S. Carter (Eds.), Towards a New
Understanding of Sraffa Insights from Archival Research, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 198–240.
K. Bharadwaj (1984). “Piero Sraffa: The Man and the Scholar – A Tribute”, Economic and
Political Weekly, August, reprinted in: Themes in Value and Distribution. Classical Theory
Reappraised, London: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
H. Bortis (2013). “Piero Sraffa and Shackle’s Years of High Theory: Sraffa’s Significance in the
History of Economic Theories”, in: E.S. Levrero, A. Palumbo & A. Stirati (Eds.), Sraffa and the
Reconstruction of Economic Theory, 3, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 55–83.
L. von Bortkiewicz (1906). “Wertrechnung und Preisrechnung in Marxschen System, I”, Archiv
fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 23, 1–50.
L. von Bortkiewicz (1907). “Wertrechnung und Preisrechnung in Marxschen System, II”, Archiv
fur Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 25, 10–51.
B. Cameron (1952). “The Labour Theory of Value in Leontief Models”, Economic Journal,
62(245), March, 191–197.
S. Carter (2011). “A Simple Model of the Surplus Approach to Value, Distribution, and Growth”,
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(5), 1117–1146.
S. Carter (2013). “On Sraffa’s ‘Corrected’ Organic Composition of Capital”, in: E.S. Levrero, A.
Palumbo & A. Stirati (Eds.), Sraffa and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory, 3, Houndmills,
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 228–257.
S. Carter (2014). “From ‘Pool of Profits’ to Surplus and Deficit Industries: Archival Evidence on
the Evolution of Piero Sraffa’s Thought”, Research in Political Economy, 29, 3–61.
S. Carter (2017). “Sraffa, the Configuration of Exchange, and Value/Price Expressions of
Labour Time in Surplus-Producing Triangular Trade”, in: L. Fiorito, S. Scheall & C.E. Suprinyak
(Eds.), Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, published online,
Emerald Publishing Limited, 195–233.
S. Carter (2019). “The Trinity 2.0 Arrangement of Sraffa Papers Section D3/12 Notes on
Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities”, American Review of Political Economy,
13(2).
S. Carter (2020). Archival Evidence of the Choice of the Wage Share Over the Wage Bundle,
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KqrHBKZdieMr0gHH_O3OsyOsYnouChj32-
8VUs0JYLM/edit.
E.H. Chamberlin (1933). The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Fall, 326–348.
L. Cuyvers (1983). “De betekenis van Sraffa voor de economische wetenschap”, Tijdschrift voor
Politieke Ekonomie, 7(2), December, 18–27.
L. Cuyvers (2017). The Economic Ideas of Marx’s Capital - Steps Towards Post-Keynesian
L. Cuyvers (2021). “Sraffa and Marx: Strange Bedfellows?”, in: S. van Puyvelde & C. Buts
(Eds.), Critical Contributions to Economics and Beyond, Berlin: Lexxion Publisher, 603–650.
J.B. Davis (1993). “Sraffa, Interdependence and Demand: The Gramscian Influence”, Review of
Political Economy, 5(1), 22–39.
G. de Vivo (2001). “Some Notes on the Sraffa Papers”, in: T. Cozzi & R. Marchionatti (Eds.),
Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy: A Centenary Estimate, London – New York: Routledge,
157–164.
G. de Vivo (2003). “Sraffa’s Path to Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. An
Interpretation”, Contributions to Political Economy, 22(1), November, 1–25.
G. de Vivo (2016). “Some Notes on Marx’s Role in the Development of Sraffa’s Thought”,
Contributions to Political Economy, 35(1), 57–70.
G. de Vivo (2017). Nella Bufera Del Novecento. Antonio Gramsci E Piero Sraffa Tra Lotta
Politica E Teoria Critica, Rome: Castelvecchi.
G. de Vivo (2018). “On Sraffa’s Library”, Contributions to Political Economy, 37(1), 132–137.
G. de Vivo (2019). “Marx and Sraffa: A Comment on Gehrke and Kurz”, Review of Political
Economy, 31(1), 95–99.
G. Dostaler (1982). “Marx et Sraffa”, L’Actualité Economique, 58(1–2), janvier–juin, 95–114.
J. Eatwell (1975). “Mr. Sraffa’s Standard Commodity and the Rate of Exploitation”, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 89(4), November, 543–555.
G. Ferrata (1978). “An Argument with Gramsci in 1924”, New Left Review, 112, 67–71.
P. Garegnani (2005). “On a Turning Point in Sraffa’s Theoretical and Interpretative Position in
late 1920s”, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12(3), 453–492.
C. Gehrke (2005). “Bringing the Edition of Ricardo’s Works to Completion: The Making of the
General Index, 1951–73”, Review of Political Economy, 17(3), July, 443–464.
C. Gehrke (2016). “Subsistence-cum-Surplus Wages versus Gross Wages: A Note”, in: G.
Freni, H.D. Kurz, A.M. Lavezzi & R. Signorino (Eds.), Economic Theory and Its History: Essays
in Honour of Neri Salvadori, Oxon – New York: Routledge, 233–248.
C. Gehrke & H.D. Kurz (2006). “Sraffa on von Bortkiewicz: Reconstructing the Classical Theory
of Value and Distribution”, History of Political Economy, 38(1), 91–149.
C. Gehrke, H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2019). “On the ‘Origins’ of Sraffa’s Production Equations:
A Reply to de Vivo”, Review of Political Economy, 31(1), 100–114.
G. Gilibert (2003). “The Equations Unveiled: Sraffa’s Price Equations in the Making”,
Contributions to Political Economy, 22(1), November, 27–40.
A. Ginzburg (2014). “Two Translators: Gramsci and Sraffa”, Centro Sraffa Working Papers, 1,
April, Modena: Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia.
A. Ginzburg (2016). “Professor de Vivo on Sraffa and Marx”, Contributions to Political Economy,
35(1), 71–90.
A. Gramsci (1924). “Letter to Togliatti, Scoccimarro, Leonetti, etc. (Vienna, 21 March 1924)”, in:
Q. Hoare (Ed.), Selections from Political Writings (1921–1926), London: Lawrence & Wishart,
1978, 218–223.
G.C. Harcourt (1969). “Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital”, Journal of
Economic Literature, 7(2), June, 369–405.
G.C. Harcourt (1970). “G. C. Harcourt’s Reply”, Journal of Economic Literature, 8(1), March,
44–45.
G.C. Harcourt (1982). “The Sraffian Contribution: An Evaluation”, in: I. Bradley & M. Howard
(Eds.), Classical and Marxian Political Economy – Essays in Honour of Ronald L. Meek, London
– Basingstoke: Macmillan, 255–275.
G.C. Harcourt (1993). “Krishna Bharadwaj, 21 August 1935–8 March 1992: A Memoir”, Journal
of Post Keynesian Economics, 16(2), Winter 93/94, 299–311.
G.C. Harcourt (2018). “The Role of Sraffa Prices in Post-Keynesian Pricing Theory”, in: M.
Corsi, J. Kregel & C. D’ippoliti (Eds.), Classical Economics Today – Essays in Honor of
Alessandro Roncaglia, London: Anthem Press, 89–95.
Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith (Eds.) (1999). Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio
Gramsci, London: ElecBook.
N. Kaldor (1984). “Obituary Piero Sraffa”, The Cambridge Review, 105, 149–150.
H.D. Kurz (2007). “The Agents of Production are the Commodities Themselves. On the
Classical Theory of Production, Distribution, and Value”, in: H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (Eds.),
Interpreting Classical Economics. Studies in Long-Period Analysis, London: Routledge,
131–158.
H.D. Kurz (2012). “Don’t Treat too Ill my Piero! Interpreting Sraffa’s Papers”, Cambridge Journal
of Economics, 36(6), November, 1535–1569.
H.D. Kurz (2021). “‘Superhuman Efforts’ and the Theory of Value and Distribution – Sraffa on
Pareto”, in: D. Basu & D. Das (Eds.), Conflict, Demand and Economic Development. Essays in
Honour of Amit Bhaduri, London: Routledge, 171–190.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2001a). “Sraffa and von Neumann”, Review of Political Economy,
13(2), 161–180.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2001b). “Sraffa and the Mathematicians: Frank Ramsey and Alister
Watson”, in: T. Cozzi & R. Marchionatti (Eds.), Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy: A Centenary
Estimate, London – New York: Routledge, 254–284.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2008). “On the Collaboration between Sraffa and Besicovitch: The
‘Proof of Gradient’”, in: G. Chiodi & L. Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or an Alternative Economics,
Basingstoke – New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 260–274.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2010). “Sraffa and the Labour Theory of Value: A Few Observations”,
in: J. Vint, J.S. Metcalfe, H. Kurz, N. Salvadori and S. Samuelson (Eds.), Economic Theory and
Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Ian Steedman, London: Routledge, 189–215.
E. Lattanzi & N. Naldi (2018). “Documents on Piero Sraffa at the Archivio Centrale Dello Stato
and at the Archivio Storico Diplomatico”, in: L. Fiorito, S. Scheall & C.E. Suprinyak (Eds.),
Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, published online, Emerald
Publishing Limited, 61–100.
M. Lavoie (2013). “Sraffians, other Post-Keynesians, and the Controversy over Centres of
Gravitation”, in: E.S. Levrero, A. Palumbo & A. Stirati (Eds.), Sraffa and the Reconstruction of
Economic Theory, 3, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 34–54.
A. Lazzarini (2011). Revisiting the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies: A Historical and
Analytical Study, Pavia: Pavia University Press
D. Levhari (1965). “A Non-substitution Theorem and Switching of Techniques”, Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 79(1), February, 98–105.
F. Lo Piparo (2013). L’Enigma del Quaderno. La caccia ai manoscritti dopo la morte di Gramsci,
Rome: Donzelli Editore.
L. Mainwaring & I. Steedman (2000). “On the Probability of Re-switching and Capital Reversing
in a Two-Sector Sraffian Model”, in: H.D. Kurz (Ed.), Critical Essays on Piero Sraffa’s Legacy in
Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 323–354.
M.C. Marcuzzo (2005). “Piero Sraffa at the University of Cambridge”, European Journal of the
K. Marx (1861–1863). Theories of Surplus Value, in: Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 32,
Marx 1861–63, Economic Manuscript of 1861–63, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 2010.
K. Marx (1894). Capital – A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 3. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books, in association with New Left Review, 1981.
R.L. Meek (1962). The Economics of Physiocracy, London: George Allen & Unwin.
N. Naldi (2000). “The Friendship between Piero Sraffa and Antonio Gramsci in the Years
1919–1927”, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 7(1), Spring, 79–114.
N. Naldi (2005). “Piero Sraffa: Emigration and Scientific Activity (1921–45)”, European Journal
of the History of Economic Thought, 12(3), September, 379–402.
N. Naldi (2012). “Two Notes on Piero Sraffa and Antonio Gramsci”, Cambridge Journal of
Economics, 36(6), Special Issue: New Perspectives on the Work of Piero Sraffa, November
2012, 1401–1415.
N. Naldi (2014). “Sraffa e dintorni tra falsificazione e verita”, in: A. d’Orsi (Ed.), Inchiesta su
Gramsci. Quaderni scomparsi, abiure, conversioni, tradimenti: leggende o verità? Turin:
Accademia University Press, 124–135.
N. Naldi (2020). “The Origins of Piero Sraffa’s Equations”, Contributions to Political Economy,
39, 1–22.
E.J. Nell (1970). “A Note on Cambridge Controversies in Capital Theory”, Journal of Economic
Literature, 8(1), March, 41–44.
L.L. Pasinetti (1966). “Changes in the Rate of Profit and Switches of Techniques”, Quarterly
L.L. Pasinetti (1977). Lectures on the Theory of Production, New York: Columbia University
Press.
L.L. Pasinetti (2001). “Continuity and Change in Sraffa’s Thought: An Archival Excursus”, in: T.
Cozzi & R. Marchionatti (Eds.), Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy: A Centenary Estimate, London
– New York: Routledge, 139–156.
L.L. Pasinetti (2007). Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians – A ‘Revolution in Economics’ To
Be Accomplished, Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.
L.L. Pasinetti (2013). “Piero Sraffa and the Future of Economics: A Personal Evaluation”, in:
E.S. Levrero, A. Palumbo & A. Stirati (Eds.), Sraffa and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory,
3, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 153–173.
D. Petri (2014). “On the Neoricardian Criticism of Irrelevance”, in: R. Bellofiore & S. Carter
(Eds.), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa Insights from Archival Research, Houndmills,
P.L. Porta (1986). “Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa’s Standard Commodity: A
Note on the Marxian Notion of Surplus”, History of Political Economy, 18(3), 443–454.
P.L. Porta (2012). “Piero Sraffa’s Early Views on Classical Political Economy”, Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 36(6), November 2012, 1357–1383.
P.L. Porta (2013). “What Remains of Sraffa’s Economics”, DEMS Working Paper Series No.
242, May 2013, Milan: Dipartimento di Economia, Metodi Quantitativi e Strategie di Impresa
Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicocca.
P. Potestio (2010). ““Perverse Cases” and the Debate on Neo-classical Theory of Distribution –
Recent Contributions on an Open Issue”, in: J. Vint, J.S. Metcalfe, H. Kurz, N. Salvadori & S.
Samuelson (Eds.), Economic Theory and Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Ian
Steedman, London: Routledge, 138–160.
J.P. Potier (1991). Piero Sraffa—Unorthodox Economist (1898–1983), A Biographical Essay,
London: Routledge.
S. Pratten (1996). “The “Closure” Assumption as a First Step: Neo-Ricardian Economics and
Post-Keynesianism”, Review of Social Economy, 54(4), Winter, 423–443.
J. Robinson (1977). “The Labour Theory of Value” (Review of Studies in the Labour Theory of
Value by Ronald Meek, 2nd edition, 1976), Monthly Review, December, 29(7), 50–59; reprinted
in Collected Economic Papers, 5, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1979, 280–288.
A. Roncaglia (1991). “The Sraffian Schools”, Review of Political Economy, 3(2), 187–219.
F. Rosengarten (2019). An Introduction to Gramsci’s Life and Thought,
http://www.internationalgramscisociety.org/about_gramsci/biograpy.html
Review, 38(11), April, 1–28.
B. Schefold (1996). “Piero Sraffa 1898–1983”, Economic Journal, 106(438), September,
1314–1325.
B. Schefold (1998). “Reading Sraffa’s Indices – A Note”, European Journal of the History of
Economic Thought, 5(3), Autumn, 468–479.
E. Screpanti (1993). “Sraffa after Marx: A New Interpretation”, Review of Political Economy,
5(1), 1–21.
A.K. Sen (2003). “Sraffa, Wittgenstein and Gramsci”, Journal of Economic Literature, 41,
December, 1240–1255.
Macmillan.
R. Skidelsky (1992). John Maynard Keynes: The Economist as Saviour, 1920–37, London:
Macmillan.
P. Sraffa (1925). “Sulle Relazione fra costo e quantita prodotta”, Anali di Economia, 2(1),
November, 277–328.
36(144), December, 535–550.
P. Sraffa (1951). “Introduction”, in: P. Sraffa, with the Collaboration of M. H. Dobb (Eds.), The
Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
xiii–lxii.
Let one hundred schools of thought blossom …: some major

differences compared with Marx
G. Abraham-Frois & E. Berrebi (1997). Prices, Profits and Rhythms of Accumulation,
R. Bellofiore (2008). “Sraffa after Marx: An open issue”, in: G. Chiodi & L. Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or
C. Benetti, S. de Brunhoff & J. Cartelier (1976). “Eléments pour une critique Marxiste de P.
Sraffa”, Cahiers d’économie politique, 3, 29–35.
C. Benetti & J. Cartelier (1977). “Mesure invariable des valeurs et théorie ricardienne de la
marchandise”, in: Marx et l’économie politique – Essais sur les “Théories sur la plus-value”,
Grenoble: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble – François Maspéro, 137–167.
A. Bródy (1970). Proportions, Prices and Planning: A Mathematical Restatement of the Labor
Theory of Value, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
62(245), March, 191–197.
J. Cartelier (2014). “The Positive Surplus Hypothesis: Social versus Physical Objectivity”, in R.
Bellofiore & S. Carter (Eds.), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival
Research, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 167–185.
S. Carter (2013). “On Sraffa’s ‘Corrected’ Organic Composition of Capital”, in: E.S. Levrero, A.
Palumbo & A. Stirati (Eds.), Sraffa and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory, 3, Houndmills,
S. Carter (2017a). “Sraffa, the Configuration of Exchange, and Value/Price Expressions of
J. Craven (1973). “Stability in a Two-Sector Model with Induced Bias”, Economic Journal,
83(331), September, 858–862.
J. Craven (1983). “Input-Output Analysis and Technical Change”, Econometrica, 51(3), May,
585–598.
L. Cuyvers (1978). “A Mathematical Interpretation of Marxian Unproductive Labour”,
Economica, 45(177), February, 71–81.
Fall, 326–348.
L. Cuyvers (1980). “Luxegoederen, Sraffa’s “non-basics” en de algemene winstvoet”, Tijdschrift
voor Politieke Ekonomie, 4(1), September, 33–56.
L. Cuyvers (1986). “A Note on the Inequality Approach of the Labour Theory of Value”,
Recherches Économiques de Louvain, 52(1), March, 85–94.
L. Cuyvers (2020). “Why Did Marx’s Capital Remain Unfinished? On Some Old and New
Arguments”, Science & Society, 84(1), January, 13–41.
S. de Brunhoff (1974). “Controversies in the Theory of Surplus Value: A Reply to John Eatwell”,
Science & Society, 38(4), 478–482.
G. Deleplace (2014). “The Essentiality of Money in the Sraffa Papers”, in: R. Bellofiore & S.
Carter (Eds.), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research,
lHoundmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 139–166.
University Press.
G. Duménil & D. Lévy (1987). “Value and Natural Prices Trapped in Joint Production Pitfalls”,
Journal of Economics – Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, 47(1), March, 15–46.
J. Eatwell (1975). “Mr. Sraffa’s Standard Commodity and the Rate of Exploitation”, Quarterly
E. Farjoun (1984). “The Production of Commodities by Means of What?”, in: E. Mandel & A.
Freeman (Eds.), Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa – The Langston Memorial Volume, London: Verso,
11–42.
P. Garegnani (1984). “Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists and Marx”, Oxford
Economic Papers, New Series, 36(2), June, 291–325.
C. Gehrke & H.D. Kurz (2006). “Sraffa on von Bortkiewicz: Reconstructing the Classical Theory
of Value and Distribution”, History of Political Economy, 38(1), 91–149.
G. Gilibert (2003). “The Equations Unveiled: Sraffa’s Price Equations in the Making”,
Contributions to Political Economy, 22(1), November, 27–40.
G.C. Harcourt (1979). “Marx after Sraffa. By Ian Steedman”, Journal of Economic Literature,
17(2), June, 534–536.
G.C. Harcourt & P. Kerr (2009). Joan Robinson, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
R.F. Harrod (1956). Towards a Dynamic Economics, London: Macmillan.
M. Kalecki (1967). “The Problem of Effective Demand with Tugan-Baranovski and Rosa
Luxemburg”, in: M. Kalecki (Ed.), Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy,
1933–1970, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, 146–155.
and D. Moggridge (Eds.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, VII, London-
Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1973.
H.D. Kurz (1979). “Sraffa after Marx”, Australian Economic Papers, 18(32), June, 52–70.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2008). “On the Collaboration between Sraffa and Besicovitch: The
‘Proof of Gradient’”, in: G. Chiodi & L. Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or an Alternative Economics,
Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 260–274.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2010). “Sraffa and the Labour Theory of Value: A Few Observations”,
in: J. Vint, J.S. Metcalfe, H. Kurz, N. Salvadori & S. Samuelson (Eds.), Economic Theory and
Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Ian Steedman, London: Routledge, 189–215.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2018). “On the “Photograph” Interpretation of Piero Sraffa’s
Production Equations: A View from the Sraffa Archive”, in: M. Corsi, J. Kregel & C. D’Ippoliti
(Eds.), Classical Economics Today – Essays in Honor of Alessandro Roncaglia, London:
Anthem Press, 113–128.
D. Laibman (1974). “Controversies in the Theory of Surplus Value: A Comment”, Science &
Society, 38(4), 482–487.
A. Lowe (assisted by S. Pulrang) (1976). The Path to Economic Growth, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
R. Luxemburg (1913). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951.
E. Mandel (1975). Late Capitalism, London: NLB.
E. Mandel (1978). “Introduction”, in: K. Marx (Ed.), Capital – A Critique of Political Economy,
Volume 2. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, in association with New Left Review, 11–79.
S.A. Marglin (1984). Growth, Distribution, and Prices, Cambridge, MA – London: Harvard
University Press.
K. Marx (1861–1863a). Theories of Surplus Value, in: Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 30,
K. Marx (1861–1863b). Theories of Surplus Value, in: Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 32,
M. Morishima (1973). Marx’s Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
M. Morishima & G. Catephores (1978). Value, Exploitation and Growth, London: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
P. Newman (1977). “Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities – A Review”, in: J.
Schwartz (Ed.), The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism, Santa Monica: Goodyear Publ. Cy.,
346–362.
S. Nisticò (2008). “Sraffa 1926 and Sraffa 1960: An Attempt to Bridge the Gap”, in: G. Chiodi &
L. Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or an Alternative Economics, Basingstoke – New York: Palgrave
C. Panico (1988a). Interest and Profit in the Theories of Value and Distribution, London:
Macmillan.
C. Panico (2001). “Monetary Analysis in Sraffa’s Writings”, in: T. Cozzi & R. Marchionatti (Eds.),
285–310.
L.L. Pasinetti (1988). “Sraffa on Income Distribution”, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 12(1),
March, 135–138.
S. Perri (2014). “The Standard System and the Tendency of the (Maximum) Rate of Profit to
Fall – Marx and Sraffa: There and Back”, in: R. Bellofiore & S. Carter (Eds.), Towards a New
Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
(Eds.), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research, Houndmills,
P.L. Porta (1986). “Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa’s Standard Commodity: A
Note on the Marxian Notion of Surplus”, History of Political Economy, 18(3), 443–454.
D. Ricardo (1821). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in: P. Sraffa, with the
Collaboration of M. H. Dobb (Eds.), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 1,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.
J. Robinson (1956). The Accumulation of Capital, London: MacMillan.
J. Robinson (1962). Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, London: MacMillan.
B. Schefold (1976). “Different Forms of Technical Progress”, in: B. Schefold, Normal Prices,
Technical Change, and Accumulation, London: Macmillan, 1997, 257–275.
B. Schefold (1978). “Multiple Product Techniques with Properties of Single Product Systems”,
in: B. Schefold, Normal Prices, Technical Change, and Accumulation, London: Macmillan, 1997,
21–45.
J.A. Schumpeter (1943). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, London: George Allen & Unwin.
A. Sinha (2012). “Listen to Sraffa’s Silences: A New Interpretation of Sraffa’s “Production of
Commodities””, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(6), November, 1323–1339.
36(144), December, 535–550.
Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
I. Steedman (1975). “Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value”, Economic Journal, 85(337),
March, 114–123.
J. Steindl (1967). “Capitalism, Science and Technology”, in: C.H. Feinstein (Ed.), Socialism,
Capitalism and Economic Growth – Essays Presented to Maurice Dobb, Cambridge: Cambridge
J. von Neumann (1945–1946). “A Model of General Economic Equilibrium”, Review of
How were Sraffa's theoretical insights received by the Marxists? A

timeline1
J. Albarracin (1984). “Constant Returns and Uniform Profit Rates: Two False Assumptions”, in:
E. Mandel & A. Freeman (Eds.), Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa – The Langston Memorial Volume,
London: Verso, 177–209.
R. Bellofiore (2008). “Sraffa after Marx: An Open Issue”, in: G. Chiodi & L. Ditta (Eds.), Sraffa or
R. Bellofiore (2014). “The Loneliness of the Long Distance Thinker: Sraffa, Marx, and the
Critique of Economic Theory”, in: R. Bellofiore & S. Carter (Eds.), Towards a New
Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave
R. Bellofiore (2018a). “The Adventures of Vergesellschaftung”, Consecutio Rerum, 3(5),
November, 503–540, http://www.consecutio.org/2018/11/the-adventures-of-
vergesellschaftung/#_ftnref55.
R. Bellofiore (2018b). “Forever Young? Marx’s Critique of Political Economy after 200 Years”,
PSL Quarterly Review, 71(287), 353–388.
C. Benetti, S. de Brunhoff & J. Cartelier (1976). “Eléments pour une critique marxiste de P.
Sraffa”, Cahiers d’économie politique, 3, 29–35.
J. Cartelier (2014). “The Positive Surplus Hypothesis: Social versus Physical Objectivity”, in R.
Bellofiore & S. Carter (Eds.), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival
Research, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 167–185.
S. Carter (2011). “A Simple Model of the Surplus Approach to Value, Distribution, and Growth”,
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 70(5), 1117–1146.
S. Carter (2014). “From ‘Pool of Profits’ to Surplus and Deficit Industries: Archival Evidence on
the Evolution of Piero Sraffa’s Thought”, Research in Political Economy, 29, 3–61.
S. Carter (2017). “Sraffa, the Configuration of Exchange, and Value/Price Expressions of
L. Cuyvers (1980). “Luxegoederen, Sraffa’s “non-basics” en de algemene winstvoet”, Tijdschrift
voor Politieke Ekonomie, 4(1), September, 33–56.
L. Cuyvers (2015). “Was Henri de Man an Early Post-Keynesian Neo-Marxist?”, Review of
Radical Political Economics, 47(1), 90–105.
L. Cuyvers (2021). “Sraffa and Marx: Strange Bedfellows?”, in: S. van Puyvelde & C. Buts
(Eds.), Critical Contributions to Economics and Beyond, Berlin: Lexxion Publisher, 603–650.
S. de Brunhoff (1974). “Controversies in the Theory of Surplus Value: A Reply to John Eatwell”,
Science & Society, 38(4), 478–482.
M. Dobb (1975). “A Note on the Ricardo-Marx-Sraffa Discussion”, Science & Society, 39(4),
468–470.
G. Duménil (1980). De la valeur aux prix de production. Paris: Economica.
G. Duménil (1983). “Beyond the Transformation Riddle: A Labor Theory of Value”, Science &
Society, 47(2), 427–450.
G. Duménil & D.K. Foley (2006). The Marxian Transformation Problem,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255650016_The_Marxian_Transformation_Problem
J. Eatwell (1974). “Controversies in the Theory of Surplus Value, Old and New”, Science &
Society, 38(3), 281–303.
D. Elson (1979). “The Value Theory of Labour”, in: D. Elson (Ed.), The Representation of
Labour in Capitalism, London: CSE Books, 115–180.
E. Farjoun (1984). “The Production of Commodities by Means of What?”, in: E. Mandel & A.
11–42.
D.K. Foley (1982). “The Value of Money, the Value of Labor Power, and the Marxian
Transformation Problem”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 14(2), 37–47.
D.K. Foley (2000). “Recent Developments in the Labor Theory of Value”, Review of Radical
Political Economics, 32(1), 1–39.
A. Freeman & G. Carchedi (1996). Marx and Non-Equilibrium Economics, Aldershot –
Brookfield: Edward Elgar.
A. Freeman, A. Kliman & J. Wells (2004). “Introduction”, in: A. Freeman, A. Kliman & J. Wells
(Eds.), The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics, Cheltenham –
Northampton: Edward Elgar, ix–xx.
P. Garegnani (2012). “‘Neo-Ricardian Theory’ versus Marxian Theory”, in: N. Salvadori, C.
Gehrke, I. Steedman & R. Sturn (Eds.), Classical Political Economy and Modern Theory:
Essays in Honour of Heinz Kurz, London: Routledge, 85–88.
A. Ginzburg (2014). “Two Translators: Gramsci and Sraffa”, Centro Sraffa Working Papers, 1,
April, Modena: Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia.
S. Hollander (2000). “Sraffa and the Interpretation of Ricardo: The Marxian Dimension”, History
of Political Economy, 32(2), 187–232.
M.C. Howard & J.E. King (1992). A History of Marxian Economics, 1929–1990, 2, London:
Macmillan.
A.J. Kliman & T. McGlone (1999). “A Temporal Single-System Interpretation of Marx’s Value
Theory”, Review of Political Economy, 11(1), 33–59.
D. Laibman (1974). “Controversies in the Theory of Surplus Value: A Comment”, Science &
Society, 38(4), 482–487.
D. Laibman (2004). “Rhetoric and Substance in Value Theory: An Appraisal of the New
Orthodox Marxism”, in: A. Freeman, A. Kliman & J. Wells (Eds.), The New Value Controversy
and the Foundations of Economics, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar, 1–17.
V. Lenin (1902). What Is to Be Done? Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969.
A. Lipietz (1982). “The ‘So-called Transformation Problem’ Revisited”, Journal of Economic
Theory, 26, 59–88.
H. de Man (1926). Au delà de Marxisme, Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1974.
E. Mandel (1968). Marxist Economic Theory, 2, New York – London: Monthly Review Press.
E. Mandel (1975). Late Capitalism, London: NLB.
T. McGlone & A. Kliman (1995). “One System or Two? The Transformation of Values into
Prices of Production versus the Transformation Problem”, in: A. Freeman & G. Carchedi (Eds.),
Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics, Aldershot – Brookfield: Edward Elgar, 29–48.
R.L. Meek (1977). “From Values to Prices: Was Marx’s Journey Really Necessary?”, in: R.L.
Meek, Smith, Marx, and After – Ten Essays in the Development of Economic Thought, London:
Chapman and Hall, 120–133.
M. Morishima (1974). “Marx in the Light of Modern Economic Theory”, Econometrica, 42(4),
July, 622–632.
M. Morishima & G. Catephores (1978). Value, Exploitation and Growth, London: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
D.M. Nuti (1977). “The Transformation of Labour Values into Production Prices and the Marxian
Theory of Exploitation”, in: J. Schwartz (Ed.), The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism, Santa Monica:
Goodyear Publ. Cy., 88–105.
N. Okisio (1963). “A Mathematical Note on Marxian Theorems”, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 91,
287–299.
S. Perri (2010). “From «the Loaf of Bread» to «Commodity-Fetishism»: A ‘New Interpretation’ of
the Marx-Sraffa Connection”, History of Economic Ideas, 18(1), 33–59.
(Eds.), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research, Houndmills,
R. Rowthorn (1974). “Neo-Classicism, Neo-Ricardianism and Marxism”, New Left Review, 86,
63–87.
P. Salama (1984). “Value and Price of Production: A Differential Approach”, in: E. Mandel & A.
165–176.
J. Schwartz (Ed.) (1977). The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism, Santa Monica: Goodyear Publ. Cy.
A. Sen (1978). “On the Labour Theory of Value: Some Methodological Issues”, Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 2(2), June 1978, 175–190.
F. Seton (1957). “The “Transformation Problem””, Review of Economic Studies, 24(3), June,
149–160.
A. Shaikh (1977). “Marx’s Theory of Value and the Transformation Problem”, in: J. Schwartz
(Ed.), The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism, Santa Monica: Goodyear, 106–137.
A. Shaikh (1984). “The Transformation from Marx to Sraffa”, in: E. Mandel & A. Freeman (Eds.),
Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa – The Langston Memorial Volume, London: Verso, 43–84.
Macmillan.
J. Smith (2014). “Surprise in the Archive: Reactions to Sraffa’s Papers”, in R. Bellofiore & S.
Carter (Eds.), Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research,
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 9‒21.
I. Steedman (1975). “Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value”, Economic Journal, 85(337),
March, 114–123.
J.W. Stutje (2007). Ernest Mandel – Rebel tussen droom en daad, 1923–1995, Antwerpen-
Gent: Houtekiet/Amsab-ISG.
R. Veneziani (2004). “The Temporal Single-System Interpretation of Marx’s Economics: A
Critical Evaluation”, Metroeconomica, 55(1), 96–114.
R. Veneziani (2005). “Dynamics, Disequilibrium, and Marxian Economics: A Formal Analysis of
the Temporal Single-System”, Review of Radical Political Economics, 37(4), Fall, 517–529.
What to conclude?
Fall, 326–348.
F. Engels (1882). “Letter to Edouard Bernstein”, in: Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 46,
Letters 1880–83, London: Lawrence & Wishart, 2010.
G.C. Harcourt (2018). “The Role of Sraffa Prices in Post-Keynesian Pricing Theory”, in: M.
Corsi, J. Kregel & C. D’ippoliti (Eds.), Classical Economics Today – Essays in Honor of
Alessandro Roncaglia, London: Anthem Press, 89–95.
C. Panico (2001). “Monetary Analysis in Sraffa’s Writings”, in: T. Cozzi & R. Marchionatti (Eds.),
285–310.
P.L. Porta (2012). “Piero Sraffa’s Early Views on Classical Political Economy”, Cambridge
P.L. Porta (2013). “What Remains of Sraffa’s Economics”, DEMS Working Paper Series No.
242, May, Milan: Dipartimento di Economia, Metodi Quantitativi e Strategie di Impresa,
Università degli Studi di Milano – Bicocca.
P.L. Porta (2014). “Comment: On the Neoricardian Criticism of Irrelevance by Dario Preti and
Sraffa and the Standard Commodity by Scott Carter”, in: R. Bellofiore & S. Carter (Eds.),
Towards a New Understanding of Sraffa: Insights from Archival Research, Houndmills,
J. Robinson (1979). “Who Is a Marxist?”, in: J. Robinson (Ed), Collected Economic Papers of
Joan Robinson, 5, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 248–253.
Joan Robinson's life: a short overview

N. Aslanbeigui & G. Oakes (2009). The Provocative Joan Robinson – The Making of a
Cambridge Economist, Durham – London: Duke University Press.
A. Cairncross (1993). Austin Robinson – The Life of an Economic Adviser, Houndmills,
Basingstoke – London: Palgrave Macmillan.
G.C. Harcourt (1996). “Some Reflections on Joan Robinson’s Changes of Mind and their
Relationship to Postkeynesianism and the Economics Profession”, in: M.C. Marcuzzo, L.L.
Pasinetti & A. Roncaglia (Eds.), The Economics of Joan Robinson, London – New York:
Routledge, 331–344.
G. C. Harcourt & P. Kerr (2009). Joan Robinson, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
R.F. Kahn (1984). The Making of Keynes’ General Theory: Raffaele Mattioli Lectures,
P. Kerr (2007). “Joan Robinson and Maurice Dobb on Marx”, Contributions to Political
Economy, 26, 71–92.
J.E. King (2005). “Planning for Abundance: Nicholas Kaldor and Joan Robinson on the Socialist
Reconstruction of Britain, 1942–45”, in: I. Barens, V. Caspari & B. Schefold (Eds.), Political
Events and Economic Ideas, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 306–324.
L.M. Lachmann (1958). “Mrs. Robinson and the Accumulation of Capital”, South African Journal
of Economics, 26(2), June, 87–100.
M.C. Marcuzzo (2005a). “Piero Sraffa at the University of Cambridge”, European Journal of the
M.C. Marcuzzo (2005b). “Robinson and Sraffa”, in: B. Gibson (Ed.), Joan Robinson’s
Economics – A Centennial Celebration, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar, 29–42.
M.C. Marcuzzo (2010). Book review, The Provocative Joan Robinson: The Making of a
Cambridge Economist. By Nahid Aslanbeigui and Guy Oakes. Science and Cultural Theory
series. Durham – London: Duke University Press, 2009. Journal of Economic Literature 48,
June 2010, 456–471.
R.L. Meek (1964). “The Rise and Fall of the Concept of the Economic Machine”, in: R.L. Meek
(Ed.), Smith, Marx, and After – Ten Essays in the Development of Economic Thought, London:
Chapman and Hall, 1977, 176–188.
D. Moggridge (Ed.) (1973). The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol.13, The
General Theory and After - Part I - Preparation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
D. Moggridge (Ed.) (1983). The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. 12, Economic
Articles and Correspondence – Investment and Editorial, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
London: Routledge.
A. Robinson (1977). “Keynes and his Cambridge Colleagues”, in: D. Patinkin and J.C. Leith
(Eds.), Keynes, Cambridge and The General Theory - The Process of Criticism and Discussion
Connected with the Development of The General Theory, London and Basingstoke: Macmillan,
25–38.
J. Robinson (1951). “Introduction”, in: R. Luxemburg (Ed.), The Accumulation of Capital,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 13–28.
J. Robinson (1978). “Reminiscences”, in: Contributions to Modern Economics, New York – San
Francisco: Academic Press, ix–xxii.
A. Rosselli & D. Besomi (2005). “The Unlocked for Proselytizer – J. Robinson and the
Correspondence with Sraffa, Harrod and Kaldor”, in M.C. Marcuzzo & A. Rosselli (Eds.),
Economists in Cambridge – A Study through their Correspondence, 1907–1946, London – New
York: Routledge, 308–325.
R. Skidelski (1992). John Maynard Keynes – The Economist as Saviour, 1920–1937, London:
Papermac.
J. Toporowski (2013). Michał Kalecki: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 1, Rendezvous in
Cambridge 1899–1939, Houndmills – Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson's theory of economic growth and accumulation in a nutshell

A. Bhaduri (1985). “Capitalistic Accumulation in Logical and Historical Time”, Economic and
Political Weekly, 20(45/47), Special Number, November, 1903–1905, 1907.
P. Garegnani (1989). “Some Notes on Capital, Expectations and the Analysis of Changes”, in:
G.R. Feiwel (Ed.), Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory, Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire – London: Macmillan, 344–367.
H. Gram (2003). “Joan Robinson: Classical Revivalist or Neoclassical Critic?”, Review of
Political Economy, 15(4), October, 493–508.
G.C. Harcourt (1986). “On the Influence of Piero Sraffa on the Contributions of Joan Robinson
to Economic Theory”, Economic Journal, 96, Supplement: Conference Papers (1986), 96–108.
G.C. Harcourt & P. Kerr (2009). Joan Robinson, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
D.J. Harris (2005). “Robinson on “History versus Equilibrium””, in: B. Gibson (Ed.), Joan
Robinson’s Economics – A Centennial Celebration, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar.
J. Robinson (1936). “The Long-Period Theory of Employment”, in: J. Robinson, Essays in the
Theory of Employment, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947.
J. Robinson (1952). “The Model of an Expanding Economy”, Economic Journal, March, 62(245),
42–53.
J. Robinson (1953–1954). “The Production Function and the Theory of Capital”, Review of
J. Robinson (1959). “Accumulation and the Production Function”, Economic Journal, 69(275),
September.
J. Robinson (1962). Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1963). “Findlay’s Robinsonian Model of Accumulation: A Comment”, Economica
(New Series), 30(120), November.
J. Robinson (1966a). Economics – An Awkard Corner, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1966b). “Kalecki and Keynes”, in: Problems of Economic Dynamics and Planning.
Essays in Honour of Michał Kalecki, Warszawa: Pwn-Polish Scientific Publishers, 335–341.
J. Robinson (1970). Freedom and Necessity, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1975). “The Unimportance of Reswitching”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89
(1), 32–39.
J. von Neumann (1945). “A Model of General Economic Equilibrium”, Review of Economic
Studies, 1945–46, 13(1), 1–9.
Joan Robinson's and Marx's model and concepts compared

P.A. Baran (1953). “Economic Progress and Economic Surplus”, Science & Society, 17(4), Fall
1953, 289–317.
P.A. Baran & P.M. Sweezy (2012). “Some Theoretical Implications”, Monthly Review, 64(3),
July–August, 24–59.
R. Bellofiore, E. Karwowski & J. Toporowski (Eds.) (2014). The Legacy of Rosa Luxemburg,
Oskar Lange and Michał Kalecki, Volume 1 of Essays in Honour of Tadeusz Kowalik,
Houndmills, Basingstoke and London: Palgrave Macmillan.
A. Bhaduri (1969). “On the Significance of Recent Controversies in Capital Theory: A Marxian
View”, Economic Journal, September, 79(315), 532–539.
A. Bródy (1970). Proportions, Prices and Planning: A Mathematical Restatement of the Labor
Theory of Value, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
M. Bronfenbrenner (1957). “Academic Methods for Marxian Problems”, Journal of Political
Economy, 65(6), 535–542.
62(245), March, 191–197.
S. Chakravarty (1989). “John von Neumann’s Model of an Expanding Economy: An Essay in
Interpretation”, in: M. Dore, S. Chakravarty & R. Goodwin (Eds.), John von Neumann and
Modern Economics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 69–81.
D.G. Champernowne (1945). “A Note on J. v. Neumann’s Article on “A Model of Economic
Equilibrium””, Review of Economic Studies, 1945–1946, 13(1), 10–18.
L. Cuyvers (1978). “A Mathematical Interpretation of Marxian Unproductive Labour”,
Economica, 45(177), February, 71–81.
J.B. Foster (2012). “A Missing Chapter of Monopoly Capital – Introduction to Baran and
Sweezy’s “Some Theoretical Implications””, Monthly Review, 64(3), July–August, 3–23.
N. Georgescu-Roegen (1950). “Leontief’s System in the Light of Recent Results”, Review of
Economics and Statistics, 32(3), 214–222.
G. C. Harcourt & P. Kerr (2009). Joan Robinson, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
N. Kaldor (1937). “Annual Survey of Economic Theory: The Recent Controversy on the Theory
of Capital”, Econometrica, 5(3), July, 201–233.
N. Kaldor (1989). “John von Neumann: A Personal Recollection”, in: M. Dore, S. Chakravarty &
R. Goodwin (Eds.), John von Neumann and Modern Economics, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
vii–xi.
M. Kalecki (1944). Studies in Economic Dynamics, New York – Toronto: Farrar and Rinehart.
M. Kalecki (1971). Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933–1970,
Dynamics (J. Osiatynski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
P. Kerr (1999). “Reading Marx – Joan Robinson’s Essay on Marxian Economics”, in: C. Sardoni
& P. Kriesler (Eds.), Themes in Post-Keynesian Economics – Essays in Honour of Geoff
Harcourt, Vol. 3, London – New York: Routledge, 297–312.
L.R. Klein (1958). “The Accumulation of Capital. By Joan Robinson”, Econometrica, 26(4),
October, 622–624.
J.A. Kregel (1971). Rate of Profit, Distribution and Growth: Two Views, London – Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (1993). “Von Neumann’s Growth Model and the ‘Classical’ Tradition”,
European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1(1), Autumn, 129–160.
H.D. Kurz & N. Salvadori (2001). “Sraffa and von Neumann”, Review of Political Economy,
13(2), 161–180.
J. Lopez & M. Assous (2010). Michal Kalecki, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
E. Mandel (1967). “The Labor Theory of Value and Monopoly Capitalism”, International Socialist
Review, 28(4), July–August, 29–42.
M.C. Marcuzzo (2005). “Robinson and Sraffa”, in: B. Gibson (Ed.), Joan Robinson’s Economics
– A Centennial Celebration, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar, 29–42.
R.L. Meek (1961). “Mr. Sraffa’s Rehabilitation of Classical Economics”, in: R.L. Meek,
Economics and Ideology and Other Essays, London: Chapman and Hall, 1967, 161–178.
J. Morris & H. Lewin (1973). “The Skilled Labour Reduction Problem”, Science & Society, 37(4),
Winter 1973–1974.
L.L. Pasinetti (1977). Lectures on the Theory of Production, New York: Columbia University
Press.
L.L. Pasinetti (2005). “Beyond the Accumulation of Capital”, in: B. Gibson (Ed.), Joan
Robinson’s Economics - A Centennial Celebration, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar,
247–265.
D. Ricardo (1821). On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in: P. Sraffa (Ed.) (with
the Collaboration of M.H. Dobb), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 1,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951
J. Robinson (1936). “The Long-Period Theory of Employment”, in: Essays in the Theory of
Employment, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1947 (2nd ed.), 75–100.
J. Robinson (1951a). “Notes on Marx and Marshall”, in: J. Robinson, Collected Economic
Papers, 2, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960, 18–26.
J. Robinson (1951b). “Introduction”, in: R. Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital, London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 13–28.
J. Robinson (1953). “An Open Letter from a Keynesian to a Marxist”, in: On Re-Reading Marx,
Cambridge: Student’s Bookshops Ltd.
J. Robinson (1956a). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1956b). “Notes on the Theory of Economic Development”, in: J. Robinson,
Collected Economic Papers, 2, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960, 88–106.
J. Robinson (1962a). Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1962b). Economic Philosophy, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1974.
(New Series), 30(120), November, 408–411.
J. Robinson (1966a). Economics – An Awkard Corner, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1966b). “Kalecki and Keynes”, in: Problems of Economic Dynamics and Planning.
Essays in Honour of Michał Kalecki, Warszawa: Pwn-Polish Scientific Publishers, 335–341.
J. Robinson (1978). “Reminiscences”, in: Contributions to Modern Economics, New York – San
Francisco: Academic Press, ix–xxii.
J. Robinson (1979). “Who is a Marxist?”, in: J. Robinson, Collected Economic Papers, 5,
Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 248–253.
B. Rowthorn (1980). “Skilled Labour in the Marxist System”, in: B. Rowthorn (Ed.), Capitalism,
Conflict and Inflation – Essays in Political Economy, London: Lawrence and Wishart, 231–249.
F. Seton (1957). “The “Transformation Problem””, Review of Economic Studies, 24(3), June,
149–160.
J. Steindl (1984). “Reflections on the Present State of Economics”, Banca Nazionale del Lavoro
Quarterly Review, 37(148), March, 3–14.
J. Toporowski (2013). Michał Kalecki: An Intellectual Biography. Vol. 1, Rendezvous in
Cambridge 1899–1939, Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Studies, 1945–1946, 13(1), 1–9.
What is Joan Robinson's indebtedness to Sraffa?

W. Bradford & G.C. Harcourt (1997). “Units and Definitions”, in G.C. Harcourt & D.A. Riach
(Eds.), A Second Edition of the General Theory, 1, London: Routledge: 107–131.
C. Gehrke (2016). “Subsistence-cum-Surplus Wages versus Gross Wages: A Note”, in: G.
Freni, H.D. Kurz, A.M. Lavezzi & R. Signorino (Eds.), Economic Theory and Its History: Essays
in Honour of Neri Salvadori, Oxon – New York: Routledge.
G.C. Harcourt (1986). “On the Influence of Piero Sraffa on the Contributions of Joan Robinson
to Economic Theory”, Economic Journal, 96, Supplement: Conference Papers (1986), 96–108.
G.C. Harcourt (2005). “Joan Robinson and her Circle”, in: B. Gibson (Ed.), Joan Robinson’s
Economics – A Centennial Celebration, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar, 15–28.
R.F. Harrod (1937). “Essays in the Theory of Employment. by Joan Robinson”, Economic
Journal, 47(186), June, 326–330.
and Full Employment (J. Osiatynski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
P. Kerr (2007). “Joan Robinson and Maurice Dobb on Marx”, Contributions to Political
Economy, 26, 71–92.
M.C. Marcuzzo (2001). “Sraffa and Cambridge Economics, 1928–1931”, in: T. Cozzi & R.
Marchionatti (Eds.), Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy – A Centenary Estimate, London – New
York: Routledge, 81–99.
M.C. Marcuzzo (2005a). “Piero Sraffa at the University of Cambridge”, European Journal of the
M.C. Marcuzzo (2005b). “Robinson and Sraffa”, in: B. Gibson (Ed.), Joan Robinson’s
Economics - A Centennial Celebration, Cheltenham – Northampton: Edward Elgar, 29–42.
M.C. Marcuzzo & A. Rosselli (2008). “The Cambridge Keynesians: Kahn, J. Robinson and
Kaldor – A Perspective from the Archives”, in: R. Leeson (Ed.), The Keynesian Tradition,
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 196–220.
R.C.O. Matthews (1989). “Joan Robinson and Cambridge – A Theorist and Her Milieu: An
Interview”, in: G.R. Feiwel (Ed.), Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory, Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire – London: Macmillan, 911–915.
London: Routledge.
J. Robinson (1938). “The Classification of Inventions”, Review of Economic Studies, 5(2),
February, 139–142.
J. Robinson (1975). “The Unimportance of Reswitching”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89(1),
32–39.
J. Robinson (1978). “Reminiscences”, in: J. Robinson, Contributions to Modern Economics,
New York – San Francisco: Academic Press, ix–xxii.
J. Robinson (1982). “Spring Cleaning”, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 8(2), 175–182.
J. Robinson (1985). “The Theory of Normal Prices and Reconstruction of Economic Theory”, in:
G.R. Feiwel (Ed.), Issues in Contemporary Macroeconomics and Distribution, London –
Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
xiii–lxii.
Robinson's model of economic growth compared with Marx and the

post-Keynesian neo-Marxists of the 1940s and 1950s
M. Bronfenbrenner (1957). “Academic Methods for Marxian Problems”, Journal of Political
Economy, 65(6), 535–542.
L. Cuyvers (2020). “Why Did Marx’s Capital Remain Unfinished? On Some Old and New
Arguments”, Science & Society, 84(1), January, 13–41.
M. Dobb (1952). “The Accumulation of Capital”, in: M. Dobb, (Ed), On Economic Theory and
Socialism, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1955, 266–272.
University Press.
M. Kalecki (1971). Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy, 1933–1970,
Dynamics (J. Osiatynski, Ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press.
R. Luxemburg (1951). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
K. Marx (1867). Capital – A Critique of Political Economy, 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, in
association with New Left Review, 1976.
G. Reuten & P. Thomas (2011). “From the ‘Fall of the Rate of Profit’ in the Grundrisse to the
Cyclical Development of the Profit Rate in Capital”, Science & Society, 75(1), 74–90.
J. Robinson (1952a). “The Model of an Expanding Economy”, Economic Journal, March,
62(245), 42–53.
J. Robinson (1952b). “The Generalisation of the General Theory”, in: J. Robinson (Ed), The
Generalisation of the General Theory and Other Essays, London – Basingstoke: Macmillan
Press, 1979 (2nd ed.), 1–76.
J. Robinson (1953). On Re-Reading Marx, Cambridge: Student’s Bookshops Ltd.
J. Robinson (1956a). The Accumulation of Capital, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson (1956b). “Notes on the Theory of Economic Development”, in: J. Robinson (Ed),
Collected Economic Papers, 2, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 88–106.
J. Robinson (1961). “Has Capitalism Changed?”, Monthly Review, 13(6), October.
(New Series), 30(120), November, 408–411.
J. Robinson (1966). Economics – An Awkard Corner, London: Macmillan.
J. Robinson & J. Eatwell (1973). An Introduction to Modern Economics, London: McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
R. Rosdolsky (1977). The Making of Marx’s “Capital”, London: Pluto Press.
36(144), December, 535–550.
J. Steindl (1945). “Capitalist Enterprise and Risk”, Oxford Economic Papers, 7(1), March,
21–46.
P.D. Thomas & G. Reuten (2013). “Crisis and the Rate of Profit in Marx’s Laboratory”, in: R.
Bellofiore, G. Starosta & P.D. Thomas (Eds.), In Marx’s Laboratory – Critical Interpretations of
the Grundrisse, Leiden – Boston: Brill, 311–328.
What has remained of Robinson's post-Keynesian neo-Marxism?

P. Arestis & M. Sawyer (2008). “Price and Wage Determination and the Inflation Barrier: Moving
beyond the Phillips Curve”, in: C. Gnos & L.-P. Rochon (Eds.), Monetary Policy and Financial
Stability: A Post-Keynesian Agenda, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 30–44.
R. Bellofiore (2009). “A Ghost turning into a Vampire - The Concept of Capital and Living
Labour”, in: R. Bellofiore & R. Fineschi (Eds.), Re-reading Marx: New Perspectives after the
Critical Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 178–194.
R. Bellofiore (2011). “Crisis Theory and the Great Recession: A Personal Journey, from Marx to
Minsky”, in: P. Zarembka & R. Desai (Eds.), Revitalizing Marxist Theory for Today’s Capitalism,
Bingley: Emerald Books, 81–120.
B. Burkitt (1979). “Wage Restraint and the Inflation Barrier”, Review of Radical Political
Economics, 11(1), 49–51.
G.R. Feiwel (Ed.) (1989). Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory, Houndmills,
Basingstoke, Hampshire – London: Macmillan.
J.B. Foster (2002). Ecology Against Capitalism, New York: Monthly Review Press.
P. Garegnani (1992). “Some Notes for an Analysis of Accumulation”, in: J. Halevi, D. Laibman &
E.J. Nell (Eds.), Beyond the Steady State – A Revival of Growth Theory, New York: St. Martin’s
Press, 47–71.
B. Gibson (Ed.) (2005). Joan Robinson’s Economics – A Centennial Celebration, Cheltenham –
Northampton: Edward Elgar.
J. Halevi, D. Laibman & E.J. Nell (Eds.) (1992). Beyond the Steady State – A Revival of Growth
Theory, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
G.C. Harcourt & P. Kerr (2009). Joan Robinson, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
D.J. Harris (1967). “Inflation, Income Distribution and Capital Accumulation in a Two-Sector
Model of Growth”, Economic Journal, 77(308), December, 814–833.
D. Laibman (1992). Value, Technical Change, and Crisis: Explorations in Marxist Economic
Theory, At-monk: M.E. Sharpe.
D. Laibman (1997). Capitalist Macrodynamics – A Systematic Introduction, Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
C. Lapavitsas (2011). “Theorizing Financialization”, Work, Employment and Society, 25(4),
December, 611–626.
H. Magdoff & P.M. Sweezy (1987). Stagnation and the Financial Explosion, New York: Monthly
Review Press.
M.C. Marcuzzo, L.L. Pasinetti & A. Roncaglia (Eds.) (1996). The Economics of Joan Robinson,
London – New York: Routledge.
M.C. Marcuzzo & A. Rosselli (Eds.) (2005c). Economists in Cambridge – A Study Through their
Correspondence, 1907–1946, London: Routledge.
M.C. Marcuzzo & A. Rosselli (2008). “The Cambridge Keynesians: Kahn, J. Robinson and
Kaldor – A Perspective from the Archives”, in: R. Leeson (Ed.), The Keynesian Tradition,
Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 196–220.
S.A. Marglin (2021). Raising Keynes – A Twenty-First-Century General Theory, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
I. McDonald & J. Lye (2006). “Union Power and Australia’s Inflation Barrier, 1965:4 to 2004:3”,
Australian Journal of Labour Economics, 9(3), 287–304.
E.J. Nell (Ed.) (1980). Growth, Profits and Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
E.J. Nell (1998). The General Theory of Transformational Growth: Keynes After Sraffa,
B. Rowthorn (1981). “Demand, Real Wages and Economic Growth”, Thames Papers in Political
Economy, Autumn, 1–39.
A. Shaikh (2016). Capitalism - Competition, Conflict, Crises, New York: Oxford University Press.
Studies, 1945–1946, 13(1), 1–9.
View publication stats

Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics From Kale

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics From Kale

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics From Kale

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics: From Kalecki to Sraffa and

Book · April 2022

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Ludo Cuyvers is Emeritus Professor at the University of Antwerp, Belgium

David Ricardo. An Intellectual Biography

Humanity and Nature in Economic Thought

European and Chinese Histories of Economic Thought

Adam Smith and The Wealth of Nations in Spain

Immanuel Kant and Utilitarian Ethics

Neo-Marxism and Post-Keynesian Economics

Theology, Morality and Adam Smith

Classical Economics, Keynes and Money

For more information about this series, please visit www.routledge.com/

ISBN: 978-1-032-25480-7 (hbk)

1 The core of Marx’s economics and the monopolisation

2 The Oxbridge connection: Sraffa, Kalecki, Steindl 11

3 The other side of the Atlantic 25

4 Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson: two directions of

5 What remains of post-Keynesian neo-Marxist

6 The work and life of Piero Sraffa 59

7 Let one hundred schools of thought blossom …: some

8 How were Sraffa’s theoretical insights received by the

9 What to conclude? 152

10 Joan Robinson’s life: a short overview 160

11 Robinson’s theory of economic growth and

12 Joan Robinson’s and Marx’s model and

13 What is Joan Robinson’s indebtedness to Sraffa? 206

14 Robinson’s model of economic growth compared with

15 What has remained of Robinson’s post-Keynesian

11.1 Interaction between profits realisation, profits expectations,

I use it not to designate a group which is in some sense less genuinely

At Cambridge, Sraffa’s paper resulted in new and intense research on “im-

In addition, Marx made an impressive attempt to make his model

Marx’s assumption that capitalists are showing an unlimited hunger for

the facts do not support the recently prevailing assumptions as to the

There may (…) be a desire to accumulate in both departments, yet the

Because this “effective demand” is lacking, there is a problem of the sale of

The Oxbridge connection: Sraffa, Kalecki, Steindl

Piero Sraffa and Joan Robinson: two directions of post-Keynesian neo-

What remains of post-Keynesian neo-Marxist economics? An

Let one hundred schools of thought blossom …: some major

How were Sraffa's theoretical insights received by the Marxists? A

Joan Robinson's life: a short overview

Robinson's theory of economic growth and accumulation in a nutshell

Joan Robinson's and Marx's model and concepts compared

What is Joan Robinson's indebtedness to Sraffa?

Robinson's model of economic growth compared with Marx and the

What has remained of Robinson's post-Keynesian neo-Marxism?

View publication stats

You might also like