Abstract
Fine and Lapavitsas accept my critique of neoclassical economics as well as my empirical findings, but too hastily reject the arguments underlyng both of them. Despite their complaints to the contrary, my work provides viable definitions of money and markets, offers a theoretically motivated research program, demonstrates the heterogeneity of money and markets, deals with standard economic processes, and addresses general theoretical issues. Within recent economic sociology, both 'context' and 'alternative' approaches improve on the stark choice between neoclassical economics and conventional Marxist political economy posed by Fine and Lapavitsas.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
