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 encounter between 20th-century analytical philosophy and Marxism. It emphasizes the use of logical analysis and the analytical tools of modern social science 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 into issues such as exploitation, class, distributive justice, and the feasibility of socialism. After 1990, following changes in the external environment and a shift in academic interests, Analytical Marxism gradually declined. Since the start of the 21st century, and particularly following the 2008 global financial crisis, signs of a revival have appeared within the field of economics. This has gradually formed the academic community of Analytical Political Economy (APE), which has developed into one of the most active schools within the field of foreign Marxist economics. Analytical Political Economy has critically inherited the methodology of Analytical Marxism and holds important significance as a reference for deepening research into the foundational theories of political economy. This article will introduce its methodological characteristics based on an overview of its developmental trajectory, while exploring 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 constitutes a vital component of Analytical Marxism. Along with Analytical Marxism’s turn toward political philosophy and its subsequent decline, its influence within the field of economics also waned. The Analytical Political Economy that emerged in the 21st century has inherited the theoretical legacy of Analytical Marxism and represents its revival within the economic sphere.
The starting point of Analytical Marxism is usually set in 1978, with the publication of G.A. Cohen’s seminal work, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. Its formal formation was marked by the establishment of the so-called "September Group" [1] by scholars such as Cohen, John Roemer, and Jon Elster at a symposium held in London in September 1981. However, its theoretical origins can be traced back to earlier economic research.
One of the economic origins of Analytical Marxism is the study of Marxian economic theory represented by Japanese Mathematical Marxian Economics. Among its proponents, the most influential was Michio Morishima, a Japanese mathematical economist who taught for many years at the London School of Economics. He introduced the research of Japanese Marxist economists such as Nobuo Okishio [2] to Anglo-American academia and extensively applied mathematical methods to study Marx's economic theories, 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. According to Roemer’s own recollection, he first encountered Morishima’s work in 1975 at the University of California, Davis. Deeply influenced, he began using it as a textbook to teach Marxian economics, thereby initiating his analytical reconstruction of Marxian economic theory. His series of achievements during this period were ultimately collected in his representative work, Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory. Early pioneers of Analytical Marxism in the field of economics also include John von Neumann, the founder of multisectoral growth models, and Wassily Leontief, who received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1973 for his input-output theory.
Another important theoretical source 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). On one hand, Sraffa was very familiar with the thoughts of the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci in his early years. Later, while teaching at Cambridge University, Sraffa maintained a close relationship with the analytical philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein and exerted a major influence on Wittgenstein’s philosophical turn—a relationship Amartya Sen termed "the Gramsci connection." Conversely, Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language also influenced Sraffa’s economic thought, and Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities bears a distinct analytical character. On the other hand, the modern classical economics revived and reconstructed by Sraffa extensively employed modern analytical tools. This not only yielded significant achievements in critiquing marginalism and neoclassical capital theory but also promoted the development of Marxist economics through dialogue. As Roemer noted in his review of Ian Steedman’s Marx after Sraffa:
It should be emphasized that the nature of the Sraffa-based critique of Marxism by Steedman and others is fundamentally different from the Sraffa-based critique of Neoclassicism. The purpose of the latter is to destroy the foundations of neoclassical distribution and profit theory, whereas the purpose of the former is to provide a consistent and rigorous basis for Marxist theory.
Political economy is not only deeply historically rooted in Analytical Marxism but is also a core component of it. For instance, the principal members of the "September Group" included economists: in addition to the aforementioned Roemer, there were the noted 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 was a representative topic of Analytical Marxism, and these studies profoundly influenced its subsequent development. For example, Cohen and another representative figure of Analytical Marxism, Erik Olin Wright, though not economists themselves, were both deeply involved in debates over the labor theory of value. Roemer’s theory of exploitation not only influenced Wright’s research on class but also guided Analytical Marxism toward philosophical discussions on distributive justice. Furthermore, the research by Van Parijs and Roemer 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.
After the 1990s, Analytical Marxism began to decline. Following changes in the external environment and the withdrawal of several representative figures—coupled with the aging of early researchers and a lack of younger scholars—the influence of this school was no longer what it once was. Meanwhile, the turn toward political philosophy within Analytical Marxism caused its economic theory to enter a period of dormancy. In fact, starting from the late 1980s, Roemer, who was trained as an economist, began to shift toward economic-philosophical topics such as equality of opportunity and distributive justice, ceasing his research on Marxian economic theory. When the Japanese mathematical Marxist scholar Naoki Yoshihara visited Yale University from 2001 to 2003 at Roemer’s invitation, his host department was Political Science rather than 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 proclamation.
In addition to environmental changes and the shift in research interests, the waning of Analytical Marxism in the field of political economy was also related to its methodology—specifically the exclusive adherence to rational choice theory and methodological individualism by some representative figures (such as Elster). This narrow methodology led their reconstruction of Marxian economic theory into a dead end and became a point of significant criticism. Some Marxist economic research utilizing analytical methods also intentionally avoided the controversial or even negative label of "Analytical Marxism."
In fact, internal reflections and external critiques of Analytical Marxism have always existed within the community of foreign Marxist economics. A group 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 (APE).
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. 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 do not truly reflect reality, they help in understanding certain aspects of the real world. He defined Analytical Political Economy as "non-neoclassical economic theory that adopts formalized and mathematical analytical methods." In the years that followed, scholars in the field held three more meetings at other locations and published two volumes of collected papers. These activities brought together numerous research achievements in the field of APE. Scholars who attended and submitted papers included Lance Taylor of the New School for Social Research, Peter Skott of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Robert Blecker of American University. Their research spanned various traditions, including structuralist macroeconomics, Marxist economics, and post-Keynesian economics. In the early 21st century, APE activities entered another lull until a new turning point arrived in 2007.
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 noted Marxist economist Simon Mohun and the new-generation economist Roberto Veneziani. Participants included early figures such as 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 APE workshops became representative figures of the field. As Dutt and others aged, Skott, Yoshihara, and Veneziani gradually took their place 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 Skott was located. Also teaching in that department were Marxist scholars such as Samuel Bowles, a member of the "September Group." They regularly organize academic activities such as "Analytical Political Economy Workshops" for doctoral students, making the university one of the academic strongholds for Analytical Political Economy.
The revival and development of analytical political economy after 2007 was related both to the transformation of the external environment in the post-crisis era and to the influx of a new generation of Marxist economists. This new generation, represented by scholars such as Naoki Yoshihara and Roberto Veneziani, strengthened the critical analysis of the theoretical legacy of analytical Marxism, reversing the earlier situation where analytical political economy was dominated by post-Keynesian economists. After more than a decade of development, analytical political economy has gradually become one of the major schools of foreign Marxist economics. In 2018, the edited volume Analytical Political Economy, published by Veneziani and others, collected 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 [3], stock-flow consistent models [4], the issue of financialization, Marx’s theories of price and value, exploitation theory, trade theory, and empirical research in Marxian economics. This volume serves as an important text for understanding the current state of analytical political economy.
II. Methodological Characteristics of Analytical Political Economy
Analytical political economy has critically inherited the methodology of analytical Marxism, forming three distinct characteristics: adherence to a broad sense of analytical method, emphasizing the precision of theoretical expression and the rigor of argumentation; prioritizing the micro-foundations of macro-phenomena while emphasizing the dialectical interaction between the macro and the micro; and maintaining a pluralistic and inclusive attitude toward specific analytical tools and paradigms.
By distinguishing between "broad" and "narrow" analytical methods, analytical political economy has carried out a methodological "clearing of accounts" [5] regarding analytical Marxism. Different scholars have different understandings of analytical Marxist methodology, and views vary on what constitutes an "analytical method." 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 shared 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 definitions has a long history, having been employed by many analytical Marxist scholars themselves when discussing the nature of the analytical method. 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 statements or necessitates and strengthens rigor in argumentation, and they are thus considered "analytical."
Some economists refer to all Marxist research that extensively uses analytical tools generally recognized by the academic community as analytical Marxism (regardless of whether they employ pure micro-models, short-term or long-term macro-models, or applied econometric tools). Within this, research specifically exploring the micro-foundations of macro-phenomena is classified separately 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 (specifically 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 use non-Walrasian rational choice models aimed at deepening the understanding of the development of capitalist contradictions.
Similarly, Veneziani takes the characteristics of the analytical method summarized by Wright as a broad definition, distinguishing it from the narrow definition of "Rational Choice Marxism." Wright argued that the broad analytical method mainly features the following aspects: first, adherence to general scientific norms in the process of theoretical exposition and research; second, emphasis on the importance of systematic conceptualization, especially the systematic treatment of the core concepts of Marxist theory, which requires careful examination of conceptual definitions and their logical consistency; third, importance placed on a detailed explanation of the steps of theoretical argumentation, whether these are causal processes in explanatory theory or logical connections in normative theory; and fourth, emphasis on the role of individual purposeful action in both explanatory and normative theories.
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 individual purposeful 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 paradigm for studying individual action. In contrast, methodological individualism holds that "all social phenomena—their structure and their change—are in principle explicable in ways that only involve individuals—their properties, goals, beliefs and actions," even regarding this as the only way, and insisting on the rational choice paradigm, namely:
Proving that an action is rational and was performed because of its rationality. That an action is rational means that, based on the agent's beliefs, the action is the best way to realize their plans or desires. Thus, rationality is accompanied by some form of maximizing behavior.
This narrow understanding of the analytical method fully adopts a reductionist stance, 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, analytical political economy generally accepts the broad analytical method, exhibiting the following three methodological characteristics.
First, analytical political economy accepts the broad analytical method, follows general scientific norms, and emphasizes conceptual precision and argumentative rigor. It inherits the pursuit of precision and rigor from the first generation of analytical Marxist scholars but weakens their insistence that no distinct Marxist method (such as dialectics) exists, instead viewing general scientific norms as requirements for theoretical expression. A typical embodiment of this characteristic is the use of the axiomatic method within analytical political economy. Although the axiomatic method is often used in welfare economics and social choice theory, it does not inherently possess any characteristics of neoclassical economics, rational choice theory, methodological individualism, or reductionism; it does not even necessitate the use of mathematical models. In fact, the essential feature of the axiomatic method lies in requiring the clear definition of theoretical intuitions and value orientations behind assumptions, and clearly presenting the internal logical structure of propositions. For example, when organizing the debates related to the transformation problem [7], Deepankar Basu and Veneziani used the axiomatic method to clearly define the different connotations of the labor theory of value. They clearly presented the exact nature of different arguments and the specific interpretations of Marx's value theory and specific axiomatic structures (i.e., a set of assumptions and definitions) upon which they depend. This axiomatic line of reasoning fully embodies the methodological emphasis on conceptual precision and argumentative rigor.
Second, analytical political economy agrees with focusing on the purposeful actions of micro-agents but opposes the reductionist stance of methodological individualism and rational choice theory, emphasizing the dialectical interaction between the micro and macro levels. Analytical political economy does not oppose seeking micro-foundations for macro-phenomena; it simply disagrees with the reductionist stance of Rational Choice Marxism. For example, the relatively moderate independent scholars in the "Marxian Microfoundations" school generally value micro-foundations but reject the reductionist requirements of rational choice models. They deny the primacy of the micro level, believing that the micro and macro/social levels are mutually determining and dialectically interacting. Therefore, they require micro-models to have a certain degree of flexibility and realism to depict the potential contradictions of social interaction. This dialectical interaction is well-reflected in two aspects: one is the structural constraints on individual action—the coercive frameworks imposed on individual action by past history, such as social institutions and class relations, or constraints faced by a group as a whole; the other is the social formation of individuals—the shaping of so-called rational behavior itself by specific relations of production, as beliefs and preferences are socially determined. On the one hand, analyzing the structural constraints on individual action can explain the origin and change of these constraints and their impact on individual and collective behavior; on the other hand, it helps reveal the emergence of social contradictions and social change. The emphasis on the reversibility of human preferences and the social formation of individuals is considered a major distinction between Marxist and neoclassical economics—an importance even recognized by rational choice Marxists. However, these core issues of political economy and the social sciences at large exceed the scope of what rational choice theory can discuss. Therefore, when dealing with specific problems, rational choice models often abstract away structural constraints on individual action and must assume that preferences are exogenously given. Through internal critique, analytical political economy has sublated [8] the methodology of the first generation of analytical Marxists, affirming the importance of micro-foundations while emphasizing the dialectical interaction between the macro and micro levels, specifically valuing the analysis of structural constraints and social formation.
Third, analytical political economy holds a pluralistic and inclusive stance regarding the choice of specific analytical tools and paradigms. First, the insistence on following general scientific norms is not exclusive to any specific analytical method, which leaves sufficient space for methodological pluralism. Simultaneously, while analytical political economy criticizes the methodological flaws of Rational Choice Marxism, it essentially only rejects the exclusivity of methodological individualism and rational choice theory, rather than completely opposing the use of rational choice models in specific research. Regarding theoretical reconstructions based on rational choice theory, analytical political economy advocates substantive discussion through concrete analysis to reveal possible rational components and specific limitations. In other words, analytical political economy recognizes that critiques of specific models are not necessarily universal and does not believe that adopting neoclassical economic models or game theory will inevitably lead to non-Marxist conclusions. Research using neoclassical models to reconstruct Marxian economic theory should be viewed dialectically through concrete analysis. For example, when Roemer used general equilibrium analysis to reconstruct Marx's theory of exploitation, he completely ignored the difference between labor and labor power, making it impossible to consider the extraction of labor in the production process—a methodological limitation he admitted. However, his "Class-Exploitation Correspondence Principle," proven under 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 like 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 the mode of expression. It can employ formalized mathematical models or, like Cohen, provide expositions through verbal argumentation. Even when using formalized mathematical expressions, there is sufficient flexibility and diversity in model selection, ranging from rigorous proofs of propositions centered on analytical solutions to illustrations using computational methods like numerical simulation. 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 can be clearly observed in the participants and papers of the annual Analytical Political Economy workshops. The aforementioned Analytical Political Economy volume brings together political economy 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 critically inherits the methodology of Analytical Marxism, emphasizing precision and rigor in theoretical expression and prioritizing the dialectical interaction between the micro and macro levels. By widely employing diverse analytical tools and paradigms, it holds significant value for deepening research into the foundational theories of political economy. However, while absorbing and drawing lessons from Analytical Political Economy, we must also recognize its deficiencies.
First, Analytical Political Economy includes a vast array of non-Marxist research but lacks a Marxist research program. Rational choice Marxism’s reconstruction of Marx's economic theory once hollowed out the research program of Marxist political economy, leaving behind only a value-based pursuit of economic equality and socialism. This led the reconstruction of Marx's economic theory into a predicament where "the surgery was a success, but the patient died." It is on this basis that Analytical Political Economy, in its dialogue with other schools, absorbed a large amount of content from Post-Keynesian economics, modern classical economics, and other schools, forming a pluralistic methodological character. While this objectively strengthened and accelerated the development of Analytical Political Economy, it undoubtedly weakened the dominant status of Marxism. Therefore, it is necessary for Analytical Political Economy to strengthen the scientific research program of Marxism and study the mode of production and the laws of its motion in contemporary society along Marxist lines. As the American philosopher Daniel Little has stated:
In Capital, a core concern of Marx was to reveal the systemic consequences resulting from the specific characteristics of capitalist relations of production. He believed that different modes of production possess unique historical "stamps," and 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 characteristics 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 characteristics confer upon the capitalist economy? And what are the "laws of motion" of the mode of production defined by these conditions?
Marx's discussion of large-scale machine industry in Capital provides us with a paradigm. He discussed how the development of productive forces during the first Industrial Revolution caused a transformation in the organization of production in one industrial sector, which in turn caused transformations in the mode of production in other sectors and led to adjustments in the social superstructure, finally establishing 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, combined with the new changes in contemporary monopoly capital, further study the transformation, diffusion, and impact of new production organization modes represented by platforms, triggered by digital information technology.
Second, Analytical Political Economy places excessive emphasis on general scientific norms in theoretical expression while paying insufficient attention to Marxist methodology, failing to further manage the relationship between analytical methods and dialectics. The first generation of Analytical Marxist scholars tended to highlight the distinction between analytical methods and traditional Marxist methods, opposing the view of dialectics as a unique methodology of Marxism. Although Analytical Political Economy has weakened this stance, it still emphasizes precision and rigor in theoretical expression, with insufficient attention paid to the methodology of theoretical exploration, particularly Marxist dialectical materialism. In fact, the generalized analytical method upheld by Analytical Political Economy does not conflict with dialectics; the two are not in a relationship of substitution but are rather complementary. This is because dialectics is not an alternative logic but a methodological guide for theoretical research, neither intending nor able to replace concrete research and demonstration. Dialectics is not a procedural method for solving specific practical problems, but rather a "set of warning signs" [9] reminding us to pay attention to the universal connections, development, and changes of things and not to fall into dogmatism. As the Marxist biologists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin pointed out:
"Remember that conditions change, and that the conditions necessary for the initiation of some process may be destroyed by the process itself. Remember to pay attention to real objects in time and space and not get completely lost in idealized abstractions. Remember that qualitative changes in results of context and interaction may be lost when phenomena are isolated." Most importantly: "Remember that all the other caveats are only reminders and warnings, and whose application to the real world in different circumstances is conditional."
Dialectics seeks to place an object or category within the dynamic process of a higher-level unity to achieve a more comprehensive understanding. The Marxist economist Duncan Foley once used the example of moraine and icebergs to illustrate this when criticizing the methodology of Analytical Marxism: a moraine 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 over a grand timescale. Understanding a category as one aspect of mutual interaction within a unity by shifting perspectives helps us provide a more comprehensive explanation for phenomena. Regarding this, the economist James Devine provides us with an excellent case study; he critically discussed different micro-models characterizing the capitalist labor process from a dialectical perspective, including the production model based on the division of labor and control proposed by him and Michael Reich, Roemer’s general equilibrium model, and the competitive exchange model of 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 reveal the laws of economic operation in contemporary society more comprehensively and systematically.
Third, Analytical Political Economy focuses too much on foundational theoretical issues and should strengthen the study of real-world problems. For a long time, Analytical Marxist research on economic theory mainly concentrated on foundational theoretical issues such as the labor theory of value (the transformation problem [10]) and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (the Okishio Theorem [11]), often reaching conclusions contrary to Marx's own views and sparking enormous debate. As the revival of Analytical Marxism in the 21st century, Analytical Political Economy naturally pays attention to these theoretical issues and re-evaluates them, which has resulted in a large amount of research in Analytical Political Economy being concentrated on foundational theory—such as issues regarding technological progress and income distribution, and debates related to the rational definition and persistence of exploitation. Even the empirical research within it is mostly an extension of foundational theoretical research—for example, the measurement of deviations between value and price, and discussions on the trend of changes in the rate of profit. Over-attention to foundational theoretical issues means insufficient research into real-world problems. This is neither conducive to the development and dissemination of Analytical Political Economy itself, nor does it seize the opportunity 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: for instance, 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 of Columbia University and Avidit Acharya of Stanford University.
Therefore, while deepening foundational 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 follow issues such as changes in monopoly power and their macroeconomic 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 widely understand the evidence provided by relevant empirical research and promote the integration of foundational theory with 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 exploring the rational use of new tools for empirical research such as big data analysis, machine learning, and causal inference within political economy to improve the credibility and effectiveness of its 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 achievements of contemporary social science and rationally using various 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.
(Affiliation: School of Economics, Renmin University of China) Source: Foreign Theoretical Trends (《国外理论动态》), Issue 6, 2024 Online Editor: Zhang Jian