Introduction

It is interesting to note that in the Economic Record symposium on the old and new political economy in 1975 around a review article by Geoff Harcourt, John Hicks referred to his 1969 book, A Theory of Economic History, as the work that expressed his break with Neoclassical economics. In the introduction to our final volume I pointed out that the separation from equilibrium theory actually occurred in 1965 in Capital and Growth. However, Hicks’s choice of the second book is not irrelevant. A Theory of Economic History aims at telling a market-based story as an alternative to the Marxian class and production focused narrative. Hicks openly states that in matters of historical analysis there has been too much dominance from the Marxian side and that, therefore, market-orientated narratives are needed as a counterweight. So why is the 1969 book taken by its author as symbolising the break with the Neoclassical tradition where that whole body of thought is wrapped around price cum market theory? A closer look at A Theory of Economic History reveals that the book is based on the premise that Neoclassical economic theory cannot be contextualised. In other words, it cannot say anything about actual markets. Hicks’s stance is very interesting indeed. A major founder of modern market theories who, in order to build a case for the market as a reference point for economic history, finds himself compelled to jettison market centred theories. Hicks’s sensitivity acquires added significance when gauged against the complete numbness in regard to orthodox Marxist economists’ view of history, which is fixated on the falling rate of profits, and of a high-minded Italian post-Sraffian group which congregated around the personality of the late Pierangelo Garegnani.