MARX, MARSHALL AND SCHUMPETER 49 of the slump he had a different explanation, namely, that the anti-capitalist bias of the New Deal policies had frightened entrepreneurs and held back recovery.3 This explanation was typically Schumpeter; the capitalist system could function as well as before if it were not for the growing hostility of the political and intellectual climate. For young bourgeois economists with direct experience of the Depression, this explanation was obviously far-fetched. It was none other than a close pupil of Schumpeter, Arthur Smithies of Harvard,4 who provided "a relentless exposure of the hollowness of any effort to explain away the Great Depression as a by-product of supposedly radical politics59.5 For young bourgeois economists, a theoretical recognition of the faultiness of the capitalist system combined with a demand for reforms appeared much less shame-faced than and hence preferable to any attempt to "explain away" reality while sticking to a theory that did not recognise this faultiness. They opted for Keynes rather than Schumpeter. And today the problems of capitalism are of a kind (e. g. stagflation) such that if Keynes appears somewhat dated, so does Schumpeter. Or does he? Professor Chakravarty obviously does not think so. As is clear even from its very title, his monograph is an assertion of the relevance of Schumpeter. Indeed, he distinguishes between two different traditions in growth theory, the Mill-Marshall tradition and the Marx-Schumpeter tradition, between which his preference is clearly for the latter. The lumping together of Marx and Schumpeter may appear intriguing at first sight. It becomes even more so when we find Professor Ghakravarty putting Kaldor and Joan Robinson, both Keynesian stalwarts who had little use for Schumpeter5 s theoretical schema, into this Marx-Schumpeter tradition. But the real distinction that Professor Ghakravarty is drawing, and this provides the rationale for his taxonomy, is between equilibrium growth models which incorporate only logical time and disequilibrium growth models based on historical time; the latter of course may use the concept of equilibrium as a bench mark, as with Schumpeter's circular flow, Marx's expanded reproduction schemes and (in a somewhat different sense) Mrs Robinson's Golden Age. The latter not only bring in the "context of cumulative time with its allied notion of irreversibility'5, so essential for a meaningful examination of economic change, but also, by getting away from the implicit notion of symmetry and co-determination which characterises equilibrium growth models, give us deeper insights into the motive force of economic change. With this methodological distinction being taken as central, Professor Ghakravarty can quite legitimately put Marx, Schumpeter and Kalecki into one tradition as opposed to the neo-classical tradition deriving from Mill and Marshall. Moreover the similarity between Marx and Schumpeter goes even further as Professor Chakravarty rightly asserts. One cannot but be impressed by the striking resemblance even in the de tails of the two theoretical schema. Consider for example the following remark of