Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Cogliano, Jonathan F. Veneziani, Roberto and Yoshihara, Naoki 2016. The Dynamics of Exploitation and Class in Accumulation Economies. Metroeconomica, Vol. 67, Issue. 2, p. 242.


    Yoshihara, Naoki 2010. Class and exploitation in general convex cone economies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 75, Issue. 2, p. 281.


    Veneziani, Roberto 2007. Exploitation and time. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 132, Issue. 1, p. 189.


    Schwartz, Justin 1995. In Defence of Exploitation. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 11, Issue. 02, p. 275.


    Skillman, Gilbert L. 1995. Ne Hic Saltaveris: The Marxian Theory of Exploitation After Roemer. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 11, Issue. 02, p. 309.


    Roemer, John 1992. What Walrasian Marxism Can and Cannot Do. Economics and Philosophy, Vol. 8, Issue. 01, p. 149.


    ×

Roemer's “General” Theory of Exploitation Is a Special Case: The Limits of Walrasian Marxism

  • James Devine (a1) and Gary Dymski (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100001413
  • Published online: 01 December 2008
Abstract

In a series of recent writings, John Roemer (1982a, 1982b, 1985, 1988) has made a provocative claim: exploitation and class are merely second-order concepts within Marxian theory, because both phenomena derive directly from differential ownership of productive assets (DOPA); indeed, exploitation remains a consistent index of economic injustice only if a “property relations” conception of exploitation replaces the common “labor-value” view. In sum, property relations, not the labor exchange, the labor proces, labor values, or even capitalist accumlation should be the central concern of Marxian theory.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Samuel Bowles , and Herbert Gintis . 1990. “Contested Exchange: New Microfoundations for the Political Economy of Capitalism.” Politics and Society 18(2):165222.

Ronald Coase . 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4(11):386405.

James Devine , and Gary A. Dymski . 1989. “Roemer's Theory of Capitalist Exploitation: The Contradictions of Walrasian Marxism.” Review of Radical Political Economics 21(3):1317.

Eugene Fama . 1980. “Agency Problems and the Theory of the Firm.” journal of Political Economy 88(2):288307.

R. F. Harrod 1939. “An Essay in Dynamic Theory.” Economic Journal 49:1433.

M. C. Jensen , and W. Meckling . 1976. “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure.” Journal of Financial Economics 3:305–60.

Lawrence F. Katz 1986. “Efficiency Wage Theories: A Partial Evaluation.” NBER Macroeconomics Annual 1986. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

William Lazonick . 1974. “Karl Marx and Enclosures in England.” Review of Radical Political Economics 6(2):159.

Stephen Marglin . 1974. “What Do Bosses Do? The Origins and Functions of Hierarchy in Capitalist Production.” Review of Radical Political Economics 6(2):60112.

John E. Roemer 1982a. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (GT). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Paul A. Samuelson , and Franco Modigliani . 1966. “The Pasinetti Paradox in Neoclassical and More General Models.” Review of Economic Studies 33:269301.

Robert Solow . 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 70(1):6594.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Economics & Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0266-2671
  • EISSN: 1474-0028
  • URL: /core/journals/economics-and-philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×