Policy Implications of the Surplus Approach 
1.In contrast to neo-elassics the surplus approach leaves 
the field wide open for considerations of socio-political 
and institutional factors. 
2. Once we descend to the level of economic policy we 
have to recognise that the two classes model ( labour - capital ) 
does not exhaust the variety of empirical phenomena. 
A. There are sectors which from the theoretical point of 
view must be called not aapitalist , for example, the 
peasantry; also the independent small artisans, and the 
professional classes. ( Julio Lopez ) 
The peasant and artisan income is sui generis. You cannot 
split it upwithout doing violence to the conepts of wage or profit 
B. How much does the surplus contain? Is it gross or net of 
taxes? According to an exa.mple of Marx ( Eapital I. p.228 ) 
it is gross. Sweezy-Baran even include wasteful expenditure. 
A stricter concept would be property income (profit, interest 
and rent, the classical concept ). 
But what about the managers income? It is again a kind of 
hybrid concept. There is much to be said for including it 
in the surplus? 
Analogies: In the feudal economy the surplus extracted from 
the peasants was used to pay also the retainers and domestic 
servants. In this sense we could consider managers salaries 
and perhaps a good deal else part of the surplus? 
C. From the point of view of economic policy the personal 
distribution of income is to-day at least as much relevant 
as the surplus.