A History of Marxian Economics

Howard, Michael; King, J. E.

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-20112-9

Cited by 146 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 . For more detailed explications of this tendency and its relation to the laws of motion of orthodox Marxism, see Baran and Sweezy (1966); Howard and King (1992). 4 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Neoliberalism in Crisis

Overbeek¹,

Apeldoorn²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…3 . For more detailed explications of this tendency and its relation to the laws of motion of orthodox Marxism, see Baran and Sweezy (1966); Howard and King (1992). 4 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Neoliberalism in Crisis

Overbeek¹,

Apeldoorn²

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In the context of the Chinese revolution and the threat of more revolutions in Asia, these states were given preferential development assistance and opportunities. As Howard and King (1999) noted, "the East Asian growth miracles" were given "a measure of independence in economic policy and relatively free access to the markets of advanced capitalisms as part of deliberate strategies adopted by the core states to help contain the spread of Sovietization. "…”

Section: Inequalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

China and the Third World are not “catching up” to the rich countries

King

2018

Journal of Labor and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Income data show there has been no convergence in prosperity or developmental levels between rich and poor states during the neoliberal period. Analysis of per capita income for every country between 1980 and 2015 reveals the widespread idea of a catch‐up by the so‐called “emerging market” economies, is not supported. Almost all states (98.6% by population) are either rich or poor, with 85% defined as poor. There has also been a widening of the income gap between these two poles. The rise of average Chinese income over the period to a level similar to other large relatively developed poor states such as Mexico and Brazil fits very much within this pattern of global polarization and does not challenge it. What appears to have “emerged” in China and some other regions is a new relative level of development among still poor states, not new rivals to the world's richest countries.

show abstract

“…This relation was furthermore taken over by Bortkiewicz (1907). More importantly, in 1910, and therefore prior to Potron, Charasoff showed the equivalence of the positive rate of exploitation and the positive profit rate by recognizing the price vector as an eigenvector of the input‐coefficient matrix and determining the profit rate using the eigenvalue (Charasoff, 1910; see also Howard and King, 1992; Mori, 2007).…”

Section: Re‐examination Of the History Of Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

MAURICE POTRON'S LINEAR ECONOMIC MODEL: A DE FACTO PROOF OF ‘FUNDAMENTAL MARXIAN THEOREM’

Mori

2008

Metroeconomica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maurice Potron was a French mathematician whose largely unknown contributions to economic analysis should be acknowledged as pioneering achievements. The purpose of this paper is to (1) reconstruct Potron's core model in terms of modern input-output analysis, (2) show that Potron proved de facto Fundamental Marxian Theorem (FMT) 48 years earlier than Morishima, Seton and Okishio by adapting the Perron-Frobenius theorems to economic problems, and (3) claim that Potron proved de facto FMT by considering heterogeneous labours 65 years earlier and even more generally than Bowles and Gintis.

show abstract

A History of Marxian Economics

Cited by 146 publications

References 0 publications

Neoliberalism in Crisis

Neoliberalism in Crisis

China and the Third World are not “catching up” to the rich countries

MAURICE POTRON'S LINEAR ECONOMIC MODEL: A DE FACTO PROOF OF ‘FUNDAMENTAL MARXIAN THEOREM’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About