IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v43y2019i2p507-525..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Sraffian Methodenstreit and the revolution in economic theory

Author

Listed:
  • Nuno Ornelas Martins

Abstract

Here I address several questions raised by Ajit Sinha’s book A Revolution in Economic Theory: The Economics of Piero Sraffa. I focus on the contribution brought by the book, and the way in which it is positioned against other contributions, especially in what concerns the methodology presupposed in Sraffa’s contribution, within what can be termed a Sraffian Methodenstreit, given the role of theory and history in the controversies surrounding Sraffian analysis. In so doing, I address the geometrical approach advanced by Sraffa, which is emphasised by Sinha in his critique of interpretations of Sraffa drawing on the notion of equilibrium. I also address the connections between Sraffa and Ludwig Wittgenstein, which are discussed by Sinha, taking into special consideration what Wittgenstein saw as Sraffa’s ethnological or anthropological approach, and its implications for the use of Sraffa’s methodology in economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuno Ornelas Martins, 2019. "The Sraffian Methodenstreit and the revolution in economic theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(2), pages 507-525.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:2:p:507-525.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bey059
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nicolás Grinberg, 2021. "Ground‐Rent and Capital Accumulation in Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 231-254, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:2:p:507-525.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.