General Conclusion

  • Alain HerscoviciEmail author


In conclusion, we can affirm, without ambiguity, that capital historicity is a criterion that allows delimiting the epistemological rupture between the different Schools: the very object of Economics, the kind of micro and macro causalities and the way empirical instruments are designed to study the empirical data will be different.


  1. Blaug, Mark. 1992. The Methodology of Economics or How Economists Explain, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Dvoskin, Ariel, and Saverio M. Fratini. 2016. On the Samuelson-Etula Master Function and the Capital Controversy. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23 (6): 1032–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Godelier, Maurice. 1969. Rationalité et irrationalité en économie. Paris: Librairie François Maspéro.Google Scholar
  4. Herscovici, Alain. 2002. Dinâmica Macroeconômica: uma interpretação a partir de Marx e de Keynes. São Paulo: EDUC/EDUFES.Google Scholar
  5. Marcuzzo, Maria Cristina, and Rosselli Annalisa. 2011. Sraffa and His Arguments Against ‘Marginism’. Cambridge Journal of Economics 35: 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Vercelli, Alessandro. 1985. Keynes, Schumpeter, Marx and the Structural Instability of Capitalism. In L’hétérodoxie dans la pensée économique, org. G. Deleplace and P. Maurisson. Paris: Cahiers d’Economie Politique, Anthropos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ———. 1991. Methodological Foundations of Macroeconomics: Keynes and Lucas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal do Espírito SantoVitóriaBrazil

Personalised recommendations