A reply to Maniatis.

A response to Thanasis Maniatis's commentary that appears in this issue on the writers' “Testing Marx: Some new results from UK data,” which appeared in Capital and Class, vol. 55, 1995, pp. 103-129. The writers accept that there are a number of inconsistencies in their original article and argue...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Capital & Class no. 59; pp. 55 - 60
Autores principales: Cockshott, Paul, Cottrell, Allin, Michaelson, Greg
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Sage Publications Inc. Summer 1996
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=510513765&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ssf
    uiTerm: 510513765
    longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson)
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        03098168
        CAC
      jtl: Capital & Class
      issn: 03098168
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Summer 1996
      iid: 59
      pid: 344
      pub: Sage Publications Inc.
    artinfo:
      ui:
        510513765
        10.1177/030981689605900105
      ppf: 55
      ppct: 5
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: A reply to Maniatis.
      aug:
        au:
          Cockshott, Paul
          Cottrell, Allin
          Michaelson, Greg
      su:
        Economic conditions in Great Britain
        Marxist criticism
        Capitalism -- Philosophy
      sug:
        subj:
          Economic conditions in Great Britain
          Marxist criticism
          Capitalism -- Philosophy
      ab: A response to Thanasis Maniatis's commentary that appears in this issue on the writers' “Testing Marx: Some new results from UK data,” which appeared in Capital and Class, vol. 55, 1995, pp. 103-129. The writers accept that there are a number of inconsistencies in their original article and argue that the most important of these arise from mistakes in the computer programs used to analyze the data. They accept responsibility for these errors, acknowledging that the computer files should have been examined more closely. They present a revised version of their analysis that includes a number of corrections and point out that these do not affect either the trends revealed or the conclusions drawn in their original article.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: N
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N