This paper argues that classical-Marxian models of economic growth are similar to neoclassical models in neglecting the role of aggregate demand, either by omitting aggregate demand issues altogether or by relegating the role of aggregate demand to the short run. By reviewing the writings of classical-Marxian authors and by examining recent contributions to the classical-Marxian literature, it discusses the implicit assumptions that allow these theories to neglect the role of aggregate demand by examining alternative growth theories in which aggregate demand has a major role to play. It also...

This paper argues that classical-Marxian models of economic growth are similar to neoclassical models in neglecting the role of aggregate demand, either by omitting aggregate demand issues altogether or by relegating the role of aggregate demand to the short run. By reviewing the writings of classical-Marxian authors and by examining recent contributions to the classical-Marxian literature, it discusses the implicit assumptions that allow these theories to neglect the role of aggregate demand by examining alternative growth theories in which aggregate demand has a major role to play. It also assesses to what extent classical-Marxian economists are justified in neglecting aggregate demand as a determinant of long-run growth.