| Abstract: | Fine and Lapavitsas accept my critique of neoclassical economics as well as my empirical findings, but too hastily reject the arguments underlyng both of them. Despite their complaints to the contrary, my work provides viable definitions of money and markets, offers a theoretically motivated research program, demonstrates the heterogeneity of money and markets, deals with standard economic processes, and addresses general theoretical issues. Within recent economic sociology, both 'context' and 'alternative' approaches improve on the stark choice between neoclassical economics and conventional Marxist political economy posed by Fine and Lapavitsas. |
