n not only were the methodological analytic methods altered, but what was analyzed shifted from a concern with examination of the holistic system, as evidenced in theories of production, labor theory of value, and capitalist accumulation, to theories that were primarily concerned with the rational choices of individuals.
While neoclassical economic theorists presented their theoretical models as a progression on the deficiencies of the classical model, the extent to which the neoclassical model is a progression on the flawed classical model is debatable. Although there are clear methodological differences dividing the classical and neoclassical approaches, a convincing argument could be made that the neoclassical model merely abandons the concerns of classical economics for an approach more suited to quantitative analytics. In investigating the extent that neoclassical economics can be deemed a progression on the classical model, this essay examines the trajectory of the classical and the neoclassical economic models, considers the extent to which their theoretical concerns overlap, and finally investigates the extent to which the neoclassical model can be termed a true progression on the classical model, or if the two model constitute separate approaches.
There are a number of differences and similarities in the issues that classical and neoclassical economics address. Researchers locate the major distinguishing factors in the area of methodology, value theory, and economic analysis. In classical economics economists ask a number of central questions; these issues include the nature of economic growth, and how is wealth distributed between the forms of wages, rent and profit. In investigator these concerns classical economists approach the issues from a social science perspective. They emphasized how goods are accumulated and how surplus accumulation is implemented; as a result classical economists from Adam Smith to Karl Marx were primary concerned with the