You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Unequal Exchange and Economic Policies: Some Implications of Neo-Ricardian Critique of Theory of Comparative Advantage
Economic and Political Weekly
Vol. 11, No. 5/7, Annual Number: Limits of Export-Led Growth (Feb., 1976), pp. 143-145+147+149+151+153+155+157-158
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4364362
Page Count: 10
You can always find the topics here!Topics: International trade, Free trade, Economic capital, Terms of trade, Economic models, Comparative advantage, Economic growth models, Economic theory, Capitalism, Trade gains
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Over the last 150 years, there has been an endless-stream of critical literature on the theory of comparative advantage. Why should one bother with yet another paper on the subject? It is the purpose of this paper to show that the recent upsurge of critiques of the standard theory of comparative advantage (as expressed in the classical Ricardian forms and in the highly refined neo-classical form) have far-reaching consequences, not only theoretically, but in the implications of the theories for policy and action in the concrete world. This paper deals only with what might be termed the neo-Ricardian critiques of the theory of comparative advantage which have their main strength in providing a sharp critique of both the Ricardian and neo-classical views. It is not intended to suggest here that, as a consequence of the neo-Ricardian critique, all previous empirical and policy-oriented research hasbeen misleading. Rather the intention is to raise some new questions which urgently require answers. Much theoretical and empirical work remains to be done to develop a full-fledged neo-Ricardian view.
Economic and Political Weekly © 1976 Economic and Political Weekly