Трудовой ценности теория
The evolution of the theory of labor value from its origin (partially in Aristotle, mainly starting from the XVII century) until up-to-date, is described, the presentation is structured in stages.
This empirically and theoretically grounded book provides insights into the ascendance of powers such as Turkey, South Korea and Indonesia and their relationship with Africa. Leading scholars present case studies from the BRICS and beyond to demonstrate the constantly evolving and complex character of these ties and their place in the global capitalist order. They also offer new theoretical insights, as well as theorisation of the spatio-temporal dynamics involved in processes of accumulation within the African space. Their contention is that, despite their supposed anti-imperialism, these emerging powers have become agents for continued uneven development. This innovative edited collection will appeal to students and scholars of international relations, political science, development studies, area studies, geography and economics.
The tradition of circuit-flow (der Kreislauf) models from Quesnay up to Sraffa belongs to so called thematic traditions, by terminology of G. Holton. It requires perpetual historical and analytical reconstruction for continuous development. In this article new circular-flow scheme is proposed and analyzed.
On the basis of generalization of history of the economic thought within XVIII - XX centuries (from Quesnay up to W. Leontieff and Sraffa) a heuristic way of circular flow theory development is proposed and established
The chapter explores the tradition of economic analysis that existed in Russia from 1890 to 1935, and provided the names of M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky, V.K. Dmitriev, G.A. Charasoff, E.E. Slutsky et al.
Written on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Piero Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, the papers selected and contained in this book accounts for the work completed around the two central aspects of his contribution to economic analysis, namely the criticism of the neoclassical (or 'marginalist') theory of value and distribution, and the reconstruction of economic theory along the lines of the Classical approach. Divided into three volumes, the book debates the most fruitful routes for advancements in this field and their implications for applied and policy analysis. The third volume collects papers concerning the interpretation of Sraffa's contribution, its relation with other streams in economic thinking, methodological debates and the history of economic thought or the evolution of his views both in general and on specific themes.
Chapter 6, by Denis Melnik, reviews the three periods in the development of economic science in Russia during the last two centuries. As is shown, these periods, for different reasons, provided an unfavorable context for the reception of Ricardo’s economics. For about a half of the nineteenth century the name of Ricardo was not unknown but his theory did not attract attention (Sections 2). During the period that started at the 1860s and ended with the Russian Revolution the consensus towards Ricardo among the majority of Russian economists was based on a respectful distance. Still, there were the attempts to actualize Ricardo’s economics. Nikolai Ivanovich Sieber, the first translator of Ricardo into Russian, regarded his theory as a preceding stage to Marx’s, while Yuli Galaktionovich Zhukovsky, who rejected Marxism from the very beginning, made an attempt to reformulate the Ricardo’s theory in terms not dissimilar to the later neoclassical interpretation. The subsequent rise of marginalist theory and the heated debates among the Marxists at the turn of the twentieth century resulted in a strive to ‘synthesize’ classical and marginalist approaches to value and distribution characteristic for a part of Russian economists. It was a background for Vladimir Karpovich Dmitriev’s original interpretation (Section 3). During the Soviet period the canonical version of the history of economic thought placed Ricardo as an immediate predecessor to Marx. A comparison between the approaches to Ricardo’s economics proposed by Issak Illich Rubin and Piero Sraffa (Section 4) allows to outline the difference between two lines in development of the classical approach in the twentieth century.