ABSTRACT
Since elements of the uneasiness with the interpretation of ‘the old classical economists from Adam Smith to Ricardo’ (Sraffa, 1960, p. v) under consideration appear to be shared by several historians of economic thought, Blaug’s review article offers a welcome opportunity to discuss the matters in dispute. We engage in this debate in the hope and expectation that the differences of opinion may gradually be narrowed and a better understanding of the specificity and fecundity of the analysis of the classical economists emerges. Since the problems dealt with are both important and complex, it appears to be a prerequisite to a fruitful exchange to supress any inclination to polemics and cheap rhetoric. Setting aside a few instances, we read Blaug’s paper as an invitation to discuss the matters in dispute as scholars should discuss them: soberly and with a quest for truth. In this reply we deal only with those objections of Blaug that directly concern our writings or points of view shared by us. The emphasis will be on the classical approach to the theory of income distribution and relative prices.
