A general evaluation of Neo-Ricardian capital and distribution theory

It is an important prior condition to be understood transformation of economic thought properly to make economic problems understand better and develop more efficient solutions. The aim of this study is to explain the Neo-classical capital and distribution theory and the criticisms of Neo-Ricardians to this theory; the validity and impact of these criticisms and how critics have succeeded in developing an alternative method for Neo-classical theory. In this context, starting from opinions of Quesnay, to Smith, Malthus and Say's classical approaches of value, capital, production and distribution theories; and the theses of Ricardo and Marx, which was dominant opinions of the 19th century, were explained. Moreover, the rise of neo-classical theory, the concepts of rationality and marginalism, the evolution in economics caused by these concepts were explained; and the Neo-Ricardian capital and distribution theory which based on sraffa's criticism were examined and finally, "Cambridge capital controversies" which began with criticism of this theory, were mentioned. Although both the critics of Sraffa's suggestion of return to the classical method in the methodology of economics and the contributions of other critical economists who participated in the Cambridge capital controversies were not sufficient to create a comprehensive economic theory that could be an alternative to Neo-classical theory; they have led to the creation of a comprehensive literature that does not prejudice the old classical thinkers. When new approaches are brought together as parts of a whole; they will always have the chance to create a holistic theory of economics, just as it has been in the development process of the Neo-classical theory.