Chen Weikai: Analytical Political Economy: The Revival of Analytical Marxism in the Field of Economics
Analytical Marxism emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s as the product of the synthesis of 20th-century analytical philosophy and Marxism. It emphasizes the use of logical analysis and the analytical tools of modern social sciences to study the core concepts and propositions of Marxism. Its representative research includes the reconstruction of historical materialism and Marxian economic theory, as well as explorations of issues such as exploitation, class, distributive justice, and the feasibility of socialism. [1] After 1990, following changes in the external environment and a shift in academic interests, Analytical Marxism gradually declined. [2] Since entering the 21st century, particularly after the 2008 global financial crisis, signs of a revival in Analytical Marxism have appeared within the field of economics. This has led to the gradual formation of an academic community of "Analytical Political Economy" (APE), which has developed into one of the most active schools within the field of Marxist economics abroad. Analytical Political Economy critically inherits the methodology of Analytical Marxism and serves as an important reference point for deepening the study of the fundamental theories of political economy. Building upon a survey of the developmental trajectory of Analytical Political Economy, this article will introduce its methodological characteristics and explore its deficiencies and directions for further development.
I. The Developmental Trajectory of Analytical Political Economy
Analytical Marxism has deep historical roots in economics; indeed, the deepening and reconstruction of Marxist economic theory is an essential component of Analytical Marxism. Along with the "political philosophy turn" and subsequent decline of Analytical Marxism, its influence in the field of economics also waned. The Analytical Political Economy that emerged in the 21st century inherited the theoretical legacy of Analytical Marxism and represents a revival of Analytical Marxism within the economic sphere.
The starting point of Analytical Marxism is usually set in 1978, the year G.A. Cohen published his representative work, Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence. Its formal establishment was marked in September 1981, when scholars such as Cohen, John Roemer, and Jon Elster founded the so-called "September Group" at a symposium in London. However, its theoretical origins can be traced back to earlier economic research. (1)
One of the economic origins of Analytical Marxism is the study of Marxian economic theory represented by Japanese mathematical Marxist economics. The most influential figure here was Michio Morishima, a Japanese mathematical economist who taught for a long time at the London School of Economics (LSE). He introduced the research of Japanese Marxist economists such as Nobuo Okishio to the Anglo-American academic world and extensively employed mathematical methods to study Marx's economic theory, exerting a profound influence on Analytical Marxism. It was precisely Morishima’s 1973 book, Marx's Economics, that set Roemer on the path of researching Marxist economic theory. (2) According to Roemer’s own recollection, he first encountered Morishima’s work in 1975 at the University of California, Davis. Greatly influenced by it, he began using it as a textbook to teach Marxian economics, thereby initiating his analytical reconstruction of Marxist economic theory. His series of achievements during this period were ultimately collected in his representative work, Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory. (3) Pioneers of Analytical Marxism in the field of economics also include John von Neumann, the founder of multi-sectoral growth models, and Wassily Leontief, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1973 for input-output theory. (4)
Another important theoretical origin of Analytical Marxism is Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory, published in 1960 by the Italian economist Piero Sraffa, the founder of "Neo-Ricardianism" (modern classical economics). (5) On one hand, in his early years, Sraffa was very familiar with the thought of the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci. Later, while teaching at Cambridge University for many years, Sraffa maintained a close relationship with the analytical philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and exerted a major influence on Wittgenstein’s "philosophical turn"—a connection Amartya Sen dubbed "the Gramsci connection." Conversely, Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language also influenced Sraffa’s economic thought, and his work Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities bears a distinct analytical flavor. (6) On the other hand, the modern classical economics revived and reconstructed after Sraffa makes extensive use of modern analytical tools. It has not only achieved significant results in critiquing marginalism and neoclassical capital theory but has also promoted the development of Marxist economics through dialogue. (7) As Roemer pointed out in his commentary on Ian Steedman’s book Marx after Sraffa:
It should be emphasized that the nature of the critique of Marxism by Steedman and others based on Sraffa is fundamentally different from the critique of neoclassicism based on Sraffa: the purpose of the latter is to destroy the foundations of neoclassical distribution and profit theory, while the purpose of the former is to provide a consistent and rigorous foundation for Marxist theory. (8)
Political economy is not only deeply historically linked to Analytical Marxism but is also a core component of it. For instance, the core members of the "September Group" included economists; in addition to the aforementioned Roemer, there were the renowned Marxist economist Samuel Bowles, the political philosopher and political economist Philippe Van Parijs, and the development economist Pranab Bardhan.
At the same time, the deepening and reconstruction of Marxian economic theory were representative topics of Analytical Marxism, and these studies profoundly influenced its subsequent development. For example, although Cohen and another representative figure of Analytical Marxism, Erik Olin Wright, were not economists, they were both deeply involved in the debates over the labor theory of value. (9) Roemer's theory of exploitation not only influenced Wright’s research on class but also steered Analytical Marxism toward philosophical discussions on distributive justice and related issues. (10) Meanwhile, research by Van Parijs, Roemer, and others on the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall profoundly influenced their understanding of capitalist crises and the transition to socialism. (11)
After the 1990s, Analytical Marxism began to decline. With changes in the external environment and the withdrawal of some representative figures—coupled with the aging of early researchers and a lack of younger scholars—the school's influence was no longer what it once was. Simultaneously, the "political philosophy turn" of Analytical Marxism [12] caused its economic theory to enter a period of dormancy. In fact, since the late 1980s, Roemer, originally an economist by training, had already turned toward economic-philosophical topics such as equality of opportunity and distributive justice, ceasing his research on Marxist economic theory. When the Japanese mathematical Marxist scholar Naoki Yoshihara visited Yale University at Roemer’s invitation between 2001 and 2003, his host department was Yale’s Department of Political Science rather than the Department of Economics (Roemer held appointments in both). During the visit, Roemer pessimistically remarked to Yoshihara that "Marxian economics as a research field is dead." As early as 1986, Elster had made a similar declaration. (13)
Beyond changes in the external environment and shifts in research interest, the waning of Analytical Marxism in the field of political economy was also related to its methodology—particularly the exclusive insistence by some representative figures (such as Elster) on rational choice theory and methodological individualism. This narrow methodology led their reconstruction of Marxian economic theory into a dead end and became a point of significant criticism for Analytical Marxism. [14] Some Marxist economic studies utilizing analytical methods also intentionally avoided the controversial or even negative label of "Analytical Marxism." [15]
In fact, internal reflection and external critique of Analytical Marxism have always existed within the international Marxist economics community. A segment of scholars approved of utilizing various modern analytical tools in Marxist economic research while opposing the equation of "analytical methods" with extreme individualism and rational choice theory. This tradition was revived in the 21st century, forming a more pluralistic and inclusive "Analytical Political Economy."
The emergence of Analytical Political Economy as an academic community can be traced back to the "Analytical Political Economy Workshop" (APE) held at the University of Notre Dame in March 1991. (16) This meeting was initiated by Notre Dame economist Amitava Krishna Dutt, with the aim of opposing the view that political economy should exclude mathematization. Dutt argued that although mathematical models cannot truly reflect reality, they help in understanding certain aspects of the real world. He defined Analytical Political Economy as "non-neoclassical economic theory employing formal, mathematical analytical methods." (17) In subsequent years, scholars in the field of Analytical Political Economy held three more meetings at other locations and published two volumes of collected papers. (18) These activities brought together numerous research achievements in the field; participating and contributing scholars included Lance Taylor from The New School, Peter Skott from the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Robert Blecker from American University. Their research spanned various traditions, including structuralist macroeconomics, Marxist economics, and Post-Keynesian economics. (19) In the early 21st century, Analytical Political Economy activities entered another low ebb until a new turning point arrived in 2007. (20)
In 2007, the Analytical Political Economy Workshop was held at Queen Mary College, University of London (now Queen Mary University of London), organized by the university's renowned Marxist economist Simon Mohun and a new generation economist, Roberto Veneziani. Participants included early members like Dutt and Skott, as well as the Marxist economist Gilbert Skillman. Since then, they have held regular annual workshops and invited other relevant scholars, including the aforementioned Japanese mathematical Marxist Naoki Yoshihara. These core members of the Analytical Political Economy workshops became the representative figures of the field. As Dutt and others aged, Skott, Yoshihara, and Veneziani gradually took their places as the core figures of Analytical Political Economy. Later, Yoshihara moved from Hitotsubashi University in Japan to the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where Peter Skott was located. Also teaching in the same department were Marxist scholars like the "September Group" member Samuel Bowles. They regularly organized academic activities such as the "Analytical Political Economy Workshop" for doctoral students, making the university one of the academic strongholds of Analytical Political Economy. (21)
The revival and development of analytical political economy (APE) after 2007 is linked both to the transformation of the external environment in the post-crisis era and the inclusion of a new generation of Marxist economic scholars. Represented by figures such as Naoki Yoshihara and Roberto Veneziani, this new generation has strengthened the critical analysis of the theoretical legacy of analytical Marxism, reversing the earlier situation where analytical political economy researchers were predominantly post-Keynesian economists. After more than a decade of development, APE has gradually become one of the major schools of Marxist economics abroad. In 2018, the collection Analytical Political Economy, edited by Veneziani and others, featured eleven review articles providing a detailed overview of the latest developments in the field. Topics included macroeconomic theories of growth and distribution, agent-based models and stock-flow consistent models, issues of financialization, Marx’s theories of price and value, exploitation theory, trade theory, and empirical research in Marxian economics, making it a vital text for understanding the recent progress of APE. [27]
II. Methodological Characteristics of Analytical Political Economy
Critical inheriting the methodology of analytical Marxism, analytical political economy has formed three distinct characteristics: adhering to an analytical method in the broad sense, emphasizing the precision of theoretical expression and the rigor of argumentation; valuing the microfoundations of macro-phenomena while emphasizing the dialectical interaction between the macro and the micro; and adopting a pluralistic and inclusive attitude toward specific analytical tools and paradigms.
Analytical political economy has conducted a methodological "settling of accounts" with analytical Marxism by distinguishing between analytical methods in the broad and narrow senses. Different scholars have held varying understandings of the methodology of analytical Marxism, and views on what constitutes an "analytical method" are not uniform. For example, Jon Elster strongly opposed the functional explanation advocated by G.A. Cohen, while Cohen and Erik Olin Wright disagreed with the exclusive insistence on rational choice theory by Elster, John Roemer, and Adam Przeworski. Therefore, neither functional explanation nor rational choice theory should be regarded as a common methodology of analytical Marxism. To reasonably analyze and inherit the theoretical legacy of analytical Marxism, one cannot criticize it in general terms; rather, one must further distinguish between analytical methods to explore which aspects should be maintained and which should be revised.
In fact, the logic of distinguishing between broad and narrow senses has existed for a long time and was adopted by many analytical Marxist scholars when discussing the nature of analytical methods. Cohen understood the narrow analytical method as a form of methodological individualism opposed to holism, while the broad analytical method refers generally to the application of various analytical tools. The use of these tools either requires and promotes precision in statement or necessitates and strengthens rigor in argumentation, and they are thus considered "analytical." [28]
Some economists refer to all Marxist research that extensively utilizes analytical tools generally recognized by the academic community—whether employing pure micro-models, short-term or long-term macro-models, or applied econometric tools—as analytical Marxism. They specifically categorize research exploring the microfoundations of macro-phenomena as the "Marxian Microfoundations" school. The latter can be further divided into two categories: one consists of methodological individualists represented by Roemer, who primarily use neoclassical economics (especially Walrasian rational choice models) to reconstruct Marx’s economic theory; the other consists of independent scholars who do not belong to the "September Group" [6] and generally employ non-Walrasian rational choice models aimed at deepening the understanding of the development of capitalist contradictions. [29]
Similarly, Veneziani treats the characteristics of the analytical method summarized by Wright as the broad definition, distinguishing it from the narrow definition of "Rational Choice Marxism." [30] Wright argued that the broad analytical method mainly possesses the following characteristics: first, an insistence on following general scientific norms in theoretical exposition and the research process; second, an emphasis on the importance of systematic conceptualization, especially the systematic treatment of core concepts in Marxist theory, which requires a serious examination of definitions and logical consistency; third, a focus on the detailed specification of the steps in theoretical argumentation, whether these involve causal processes in explanatory theory or logical connections in normative theory; and fourth, an emphasis on the status of intentional individual action in both explanatory and normative theories. [31]
The greatest difference between narrow rational choice Marxism and the broad analytical method lies in the final point. Rational choice Marxism does not merely value intentional individual action; it further insists on methodological individualism and rational choice theory. The broad analytical method only emphasizes that starting from individual action may be useful, but it does not consider this the only legitimate method, nor does it specify a particular paradigm for studying individual action. Methodological individualism, however, holds that "all social phenomena—their structure and their change—are in principle explicable in ways that involve only individuals—their properties, goals, beliefs and actions," [32] even considering this the sole method and insisting on the rational choice paradigm, namely:
...demonstrating that the behavior was rational, and performed because it was rational. For a behavior to be rational means that, given the beliefs of the agent, the behavior was the best way to realize his plans or desires. Rationality, therefore, goes together with some form of maximizing behavior. [33]
This narrow understanding of analytical methods fully adopts a position of reductionism, believing that all social relations and social phenomena can be reduced to the rational actions of individuals.
Analytical political economy argues that the decline of analytical Marxism in economic theory is rooted in the narrow methodology of rational choice Marxism. Through the critical inheritance of analytical Marxism, APE generally accepts the broad analytical method, exhibiting the following three methodological characteristics.
First, APE accepts the analytical method in the broad sense, follows general scientific norms, and emphasizes conceptual precision and argumentative rigor. APE inherits the pursuit of precision and rigor in theoretical expression from the first generation of analytical Marxist scholars, but weakens their insistence that no distinct Marxist method (such as dialectics) exists, viewing general scientific norms more as requirements for theoretical expression. The most typical embodiment of this methodological characteristic is the use of the axiomatic method within APE. Although the axiomatic method is often employed in welfare economics and social choice theory, it does not inherently possess any characteristics of neoclassical economics, rational choice theory, methodological individualism, or reductionism; indeed, it does not even require the use of mathematical models. [34] In fact, the essential feature of the axiomatic method lies in the requirement to explicitly define the theoretical intuitions and value orientations behind hypotheses, clearly presenting the internal logical structure of propositions. For instance, when sorting through the debates surrounding the transformation problem, [7] Simon Mohun and Veneziani used the axiomatic method to explicitly define different connotations of the labor theory of value, clearly presenting the exact nature of different arguments and the specific interpretations and axiomatic structures (i.e., a set of assumptions and definitions) of Marx’s value theory upon which they rely. [35] This axiomatic approach to argumentation fully reflects APE’s methodological emphasis on conceptual precision and argumentative rigor.
Second, APE agrees with focusing on the intentional actions of micro-subjects but opposes the reductionist stance of methodological individualism and rational choice theory, emphasizing the dialectical interaction between the micro and macro levels. APE does not oppose seeking microfoundations for macro-phenomena; it simply does not agree with the reductionist stance of rational choice Marxism. For example, relatively moderate independent scholars within the "Marxian Microfoundations" school generally value microfoundations but reject the reductionist requirements of rational choice models. Because they deny the priority of the micro-level and believe that the micro and macro/social levels are mutually determining and dialectically interacting, they require micro-models to possess a certain flexibility and realism to depict the potential contradictions of social interaction. [36] This dialectical interaction between the micro and macro is well-reflected in two aspects: first, the structural constraints on individual action—that is, the coercive frameworks imposed on individual action by past history, such as social institutions and class relations, or the constraints faced by a group only as a collective; [37] and second, the social formation of the individual—that is, the shaping of the so-called rational behavior of individuals by specific relations of production, given that beliefs and preferences are socially determined. The analysis of structural constraints on individual action can, on the one hand, explain the origin and change of these constraints and their impact on individual and collective behavior, and on the other hand, help reveal the emergence of social contradictions and social change. Furthermore, the emphasis on the reversibility of human preferences and the social formation of the individual is considered a significant difference between Marxian economics and neoclassical economics, the importance of which is recognized even by rational choice Marxists. [38] However, these core issues of political economy—and indeed the social sciences as a whole—exceed the scope of what rational choice theory can discuss. Therefore, when handling specific problems, rational choice models often abstract away the structural constraints on individual action and are forced to assume that preferences are exogenously given. [39] Through internal critique, analytical political economy has sublated [8] the methodology of the first generation of analytical Marxism. While recognizing the importance of microfoundations, it emphasizes the dialectical interaction between the macro and micro levels, placing particular importance on the analysis of structural constraints on individual behavior and the social formation of the individual.
Third, analytical political economy adopts a pluralistic and inclusive stance regarding the choice of specific analytical tools and paradigms. First, analytical political economy’s insistence on adhering to general scientific norms is not exclusive to any particular analytical method, which leaves sufficient space for methodological pluralism. Simultaneously, although analytical political economy criticized the methodological flaws of Rational Choice Marxism [9], it in fact only rejected the exclusivity of methodological individualism and rational choice theory, rather than completely opposing the adoption of rational choice models in specific research. Regarding theoretical reconstructions based on rational choice theory, analytical political economy advocates for substantive discussion through concrete analysis to reveal potential rational elements and specific limitations therein. In other words, analytical political economy recognizes that critiques of specific models are not necessarily universal and does not believe that employing neoclassical economic models or game theory will inevitably lead to non-Marxist conclusions. Research that uses neoclassical models to reconstruct Marxist economic theory should be viewed dialectically through concrete analysis. For example, when John Roemer [10] used general equilibrium analysis to reconstruct Marx's theory of exploitation, he completely ignored the distinction between labor and labor power, making it impossible to account for the extraction of labor within the production process—a methodological limitation he himself acknowledged. However, the "Class-Exploitation Correspondence Principle" he proved within a perfectly competitive model successfully characterized an important dimension of Marx’s theory of exploitation and is undoubtedly worthy of affirmation. In fact, many critics of Analytical Marxism also admit that analytical tools such as game theory can be fruitfully applied to Marxist economics. Broadly speaking, analytical political economy includes not only theoretical analysis but also considerable empirical research. It pursues precision and rigor in theoretical expression but does not restrict its mode of expression; it can employ formalized mathematical models or, like G.A. Cohen [11], provide elaboration through verbal argumentation. Even when employing formalized mathematical expressions, there is sufficient flexibility and diversity in the choice of specific models—one can provide rigorous proofs of propositions centered on analytical solutions or use computational methods such as numerical simulations for illustration. Regarding analytical paradigms, it allows for the absorption and borrowing of theories and methods from different schools, including neoclassical economic theory, complexity economics, and Post-Keynesian economics. This methodological diversity is clearly observable in the participants and papers of analytical political economy seminars over the years. The aforementioned volume Analytical Political Economy brings together research using different methods and perspectives, fully reflecting the openness and inclusiveness of analytical political economy toward different analytical paradigms.
III. Reflections on Analytical Political Economy
Analytical political economy has critically inherited the methodology of Analytical Marxism, emphasizing precision and rigor in theoretical expression, valuing the dialectical interaction between the micro and macro levels, and extensively utilizing various analytical tools and paradigms. It holds significant reference value for deepening basic theoretical research in political economy. However, while we learn from and draw upon analytical political economy, we must also recognize its deficiencies.
First, analytical political economy includes a large amount of non-Marxist research but lacks a Marxist research program. Rational Choice Marxism’s reconstruction of Marxist economic theory once hollowed out the research program of Marxist political economy, eventually leaving only the pursuit of values like economic equality and socialism. This led to a predicament where the reconstruction of Marxist economic theory was a "successful surgery, but the patient died." On this basis, analytical political economy has absorbed a large amount of content from other schools, such as Post-Keynesian economics and modern classical economics, in its dialogue with them, forming a pluralistic methodological character. Although this has objectively strengthened and accelerated the development of analytical political economy, it has undoubtedly weakened the subject status of Marxism. Therefore, it is necessary for analytical political economy to strengthen the Marxist scientific research program and study the modes of production and laws of motion of contemporary society along Marxist lines. As the American philosopher Daniel Little stated:
In Capital, a core concern for Marx was to reveal the systemic consequences resulting from the specific features of capitalist relations of production. He believed that different modes of production possess unique historical "signatures" and that the unique laws of motion of these modes of production originate from the basic attributes of their economic structures. By using the analytical tools of political economy to study the essential features of the capitalist economic structure, Marx sought to reveal the institutional logic of the capitalist system: what unique organizational forms and development patterns do these structural and functional essential features bestow upon the capitalist economy? And what "laws of motion" does a mode of production defined by these conditions possess?
Marx’s discussion of large-scale machine industry [12] in Capital provides a paradigm for us. He discussed how the development of productive forces during the first Industrial Revolution caused a transformation in the mode of production organization in one industrial sector, which in turn triggered transformations in the modes of production of other sectors, led to adjustments in the social superstructure, and finally established the dominance of this new mode of production throughout society. Accordingly, analytical political economy should return to the core issues of Marxist economic theory and, in combination with new changes in contemporary monopoly capital, further study the transformation, diffusion, and impact of new modes of production organization represented by platforms, triggered by digital information technology.
Second, analytical political economy overemphasizes general scientific norms in theoretical expression while paying insufficient attention to Marxist methodology, failing to further handle the relationship between analytical methods and dialectics. The first generation of Analytical Marxist scholars tended to highlight the difference between analytical methods and traditional Marxist methods, opposing the view of dialectics as a unique Marxist methodology. Although analytical political economy has weakened this stance, it still emphasizes precision and rigor in theoretical expression and pays insufficient attention to the methodology of theoretical exploration, particularly Marxist dialectical materialism. In fact, the broad analytical method upheld by analytical political economy does not conflict with dialectics; the two are not in a relationship of substitution but are complementary. This is because dialectics is not an alternative logic but a methodological guide for theoretical research; it does not intend to, nor can it, replace concrete research and argumentation. Dialectics is not a procedural method for solving specific practical problems but a "set of warning signs" reminding us to pay attention to the universal connections, development, and changes of things and to avoid falling into dogmatism. As Marxist biologists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin pointed out:
"Remember that conditions change, and that the conditions required for the initiation of some process may be destroyed by the process itself. Remember to pay attention to real objects in space and time and not get lost totally in idealized abstractions. Remember that qualitative effects of context and interaction may be lost when phenomena are isolated." Above all: "Remember that all other cautions are only reminders and warnings whose application to different circumstances of the real world is conditional."
Dialectics seeks to place a certain object or category into the dynamic process of a higher-level unity to achieve a more comprehensive understanding. When criticizing the methodology of Analytical Marxism, Marxist economist Duncan Foley once used glacial till [13] and icebergs as an illustration: glacial till can be seen as a collection of rocks moving deterministically according to the laws of mechanics, but it may be more helpful to see it as a manifestation of geological processes occurring on a grand timescale. Understanding a category as an aspect of mutual interaction within a unity by shifting perspectives helps us provide a more comprehensive explanation for phenomena. In this regard, economist James Devine provides an excellent case; from a dialectical perspective, he critically discussed different micro-models characterizing the capitalist labor process, including the production model based on the division of labor and control proposed by himself and Michael Reich, Roemer’s general equilibrium model, and the competitive exchange model of Samuel Bowles and others. Devine pointed out that any one of these three theories is one-sided or even erroneous; a comprehensive understanding of the capitalist labor process requires synthesizing the perspectives of all three and supplementing them with research at different levels, such as macro-dynamics, history, and institutions. In short, clarifying the relationship between analytical methods and dialectics, reasonably using dialectics as a methodological guide for scientific research, and combining it with various analytical tools of contemporary social science will help analytical political economy more comprehensively and systematically reveal the economic laws of motion of contemporary society.
Third, analytical political economy focuses too much on basic theoretical issues and should strengthen the study of real-world problems. For a long time, Analytical Marxist research on economic theory mainly concentrated on basic theoretical issues such as the labor theory of value (the transformation problem [14]) and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (the Okishio Theorem [15]), often reaching conclusions contrary to Marx's own views and sparking enormous debate. As a 21st-century revival of Analytical Marxism, analytical political economy naturally follows these theoretical issues and clears them up anew. This has resulted in a concentration of a large amount of analytical political economy research on basic theory, such as debates regarding technological progress and income distribution, the rational definition of exploitation, and the persistence of exploitation. Even the empirical research within it is mostly an extension of basic theoretical research, such as the measurement of deviations between values and prices and discussions on the trend of changes in the rate of profit. Over-attention to basic theoretical issues implies insufficient research on real-world problems, which is neither conducive to the development and dissemination of analytical political economy itself nor conducive to seizing opportunities for dialogue with the progressive left in current Western economics. As Roemer pointed out in an interview:
The most creative work among progressive economists today is empirical: such as the research on inequality by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, the research on inequality of opportunity in the United States by Raj Chetty and his research team at Harvard University, and the creative research in economic history by young scholars like Suresh Naidu at Columbia University and Avidit Acharya at Stanford University.
Therefore, while deepening basic theoretical research, analytical political economy should pay more attention to the new characteristics and phenomena of contemporary capitalist economies and strengthen dialogue with relevant empirical research. Specifically, analytical political economy should closely monitor issues such as changes in monopoly power and their macro-impacts, new types of labor relations in the digital platform economy, the connection between capital accumulation and climate change, and the impact of technological changes such as automation and artificial intelligence on industrial organization and income distribution. It should extensively understand the evidence provided by relevant empirical research and promote the combination of basic theory and contemporary reality through exchange. In terms of research methods, analytical political economy should seize the opportunities brought by the innovation of quantitative analysis methods in the digital age, actively explore the rational application of new empirical research tools such as big data analysis, machine learning, and causal inference within political economy to improve the credibility and effectiveness of research. In short, only by responding to the concerns of the times, under the scientific guidance of the Marxist research program and dialectics, and by fully drawing on the research results of contemporary social sciences and reasonably applying a variety of analytical tools to conduct in-depth research on real-world problems, can analytical political economy more effectively promote theoretical innovation and continuously enhance its theoretical vitality and explanatory power.
(Author's affiliation: School of Economics, Renmin University of China) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends, Issue 6, 2024