Against the current: Sraffa's unpublished manuscripts and the history of economic thought *

The paper throws some new light on Sraffa's contribution, using material from his yet unpublished papers. Attention focuses on Sraffa's rediscovery of the distinct character of the classical theory of value and distribution and his refutation of the Marshallian interpretation that it is only a special case of demand and supply theory, his reformulation of the classical theory, and his criticism of the alternative neoclassical theory.     

The Isolated State in Relation to Agriculture and Political Economy,Part III: Principles for the Determination of Rent,the Most Advantageous Rotation Period and the Value of Stands of Varying Age in Pinewoods

Abstract

Sraffa's book artfully combines an exposition of key problems of capital theory, using economic logic, with mathematical arguments, and he created a school of disciples extending his ideas by means of both methods. His analysis of single product systems has turned out essentially to be flawless, but the problems of joint production cannot simply be solved on the basis of analogies with single production. A truncation approach and a dynamic approach are discussed in order to summarise his main results, to illustrate his method and to take stock of the recent developments of the theory.     

Sraffa and the Marshallian tradition*

Abstract

The paper retraces some of the stages in Sraffa's thinking about the work of Marshall, by drawing on unpublished material in the Sraffa archive from 1923 to 1930. It argues that Sraffa transformed his dissent – which was based on ideological grounds – into a ‘quest for the fatal error’ to demolish the logical construction of Marshallian theory. Some of his attacks were successful (for example, the critique of the relation between costs and output); other attempts failed (the critique of the ‘normal rate of profit’ and the critique of the concept of marginal productivity) since Sraffa could not find enough textual evidence to support his position.     

On the importance of institutions and forms of organisation in Piero Sraffa's economics: the case of business cycles,money, and economic policy

Abstract

This paper is based on an investigation of the Sraffa Archives and tries to characterise Piero Sraffa's approach to business cycles and economic policy. It includes two parts. The first part of the paper shows the importance of economic institutions and social conventions in Sraffa's contribution to economics and their relation with social conflicts. The second part of the paper shows how this importance permits to understand better business cycles and economic policy but also indirectly contributes to a re-interpretation of Sraffa's contribution to economics.     

A Note of Thanks

This paper examines the early years of Piero Sraffa's career. Its purpose is to present

new information that may improve our undersranding of his life and work and to integrate or rectify what is already contained in the biographical essays published during the fast two decades with new data emerging from his personal papers at the Wren Library of Trinity College and from other—often related—sources.     

Sraffa,interdependence and demand: the Gramscian influence

The influence of Sraffa' early commitments to Gramscian Marxism on his subsequent economic analysis have been little investigated by Sraffa scholars. The discussion here argues for a philosophical connection. Specifically, it is argued that organicist ideas found their way into Sraffa's thinking about interdependence in his 1926 critique of Marshall, in his reported critique of Wittgenstein's early philosophy, and in his 1960 Production of commodities. In each instance, atomist views were challenged in an understanding of agent or sectoral interdependence that made use a single criterion for agent or sectoral autonomy: that such autonomy depends upon the fulfilment of identify conditions for the individuation of autonomous agents or sectors. It is suggested that Sraffa's thinking in this regard ses the attempted fulfilment of these conditions in neoclassical theory as self-contradictory, thus allowing the characterization of his thinking as a form of impossibility logic. This impossibility logic is contrasted to that of Arrow, in order to advance general propositions about Sraffa's understanding of demand.     

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS

Abstract

This paper reconstructs the academic figure of Sraffa at the University of Cambridge as it emerges from his papers, his correspondence with the economists with whom he had special relations, and the official documents of the University, in particular in connection with his role in the Faculty of Economics and Politics, to which he belonged from 1927 to 1965. It presents a detailed examination of the various posts held by Sraffa at the University as Lecturer, Assistant Director of Research, Member of the Degree Committee, Examiner, Member of the Faculty Board, as co-founder of The Department of Applied Economics, Elector to the Chairs of Political Economy, Industrial Relations and Economics, Member of King's College and finally as Fellow of Trinity College. Moreover, the relationship with his fellow economists in Cambridge, in particular Keynes, Kahn, Kaldor and Joan Robinson is also examined and assessed.

The broad conclusion of the paper is that Sraffa's relationship with Cambridge University was complex, contradictory and intense, and should be seen within the broader context of the ambiguous relations Sraffa had with academia in general.     

Removing an ‘insuperable obstacle’ in the way of an objectivist analysis: Sraffa's attempts at fixed capital *

Abstract

The paper discusses Sraffa's consecutive attempts in the late 1920s and early 1940s to tackle a problem which endangered his objectivist, surplus-based approach to the theory of value and distribution aimed at reviving the standpoint of the classical economists. Whilst with circulating capital the value transfer to the product and the physical ‘destruction’ of the input are one and the same thing, with fixed capital this is not so. Sraffa eventually overcame the difficulty in terms of the joint products-method. This allowed him to explain relative prices and the rate of profits strictly in ‘material terms’.     

Keynes and Sraffa's 'Difficulties with J. H. Hollander'

The paper reports on Jacob H. Hollander's cooperation with John Maynard Keynes and Piero Sraffa in the preparation of the latter's edition of The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. The report is based on archive material from various sources, including the unpublished papers of Edwin Cannan, Piero Sraffa, Jacob H. Hollander, John Maynard Keynes, and Jacob Viner, and the archive of the Royal Economic Society. The archive material consulted by us shows that, put mildly, Jacob H. Hollander did not promote Sraffa's editorial project: he held back material which he had received from Frank Ricardo and did not disclose to Sraffa that he owned several important letters which he had privately purchased. Moreover, Sraffa was refused access to Ricardiana even after he had traced them down in laborious detective work to be in Hollander's possession. Hollander's unwillingness to cooperate with Sraffa considerably delayed the publication of the Ricardo edition.     

Foreword to the Symposium

This paper investigates a number of aspects of Piero Sraffa's early philosophical thinking by placing him within the historical materialist tradition of reasoning about the relation of ideas to the historical process. It first distinguishes Alfred Marshall's views about the historical development of ideas by addressing Marshall's responses to the criticisms of William Cunningham of the English Historical School. Marshall's concept of economics as a universal engine of discovery was rejected by Sraffa in his early writings. Sraffa's critique of Marshall is then argued to lead to two early philosophical commitments on Sraffa's part: that deductivist modes of explanation are inappropriate in economics and that economics aims to explain the underlying structures of causal interaction that had been the concern of the classical political economists. The paper closes with brief remarks on how Sraffa's later philosophical thinking might be approached.     

Sraffa,Keynes and 'The Years of High Theory'

This paper argues that Shackle's interpretation of 'the years of high theory' is flawed. Shackle (1967) sees Sraffa's critique of the Marshallian theory of value only as a step in the development of the theory of imperfect competition. In the same vein, Shackle reduces the message of Keynes's General Theory to the claim that unemployment results from the existence of uncertainty and irrational expectations. Thus, Shackle leaves open the possibility that both Sraffa's critique of Marshall and Keynes's theory of effective demand do not question the internal coherence of neoclassical theory, but instead merely assert that market imperfections render it irrelevant for the analysis of the real world. This paper argues, in contrast, that the theories of Sraffa and Keynes should be interpreted as radical departures from marginalism, and represent a return to the surplus approach of classical political economy.     

The Sraffian schools

After briefly recalling Sraffa's own contribution, the article surveys the ensuing debate, concerning both the critique of the marignalist theory, the revival of the classical approach, and the analytical contributions on specific aspects of Sraffa's 1960 book. Three lines of research for a modern reconstruction of th classical approach are then illustrated: Pasinetti's lsquo;Ricardianrsquo; reconstruction, Garegnani's lsquo;Marxianrsquo; reconstruction, and Sylos Labini's lsquo;Smithianrsquo; reconstruction. Finally, an assessment of these three research lines is provided, together with some suggestion for their integration.     

Sraffa on Fixed Capital,Money and the Phases of Capitalism

In this paper I address some elements in Piero Sraffa's thinking that are connected to his conceptualization of the phases of capitalism. Sraffa describes various stages of capitalism using similar categories to the ones employed in the model of the economy provided in Production of Commodities. This is done by distinguishing the role of population, land and (circulating, intermediate and fixed) capital in each stage. Sraffa changed his conceptualization of fixed capital over the years, until he reached its final formulation. The conceptualizations of fixed capital that Sraffa discusses, together with his remarks on money which are made through an analogy with circulating and fixed capital, provide some elements that shed light on Sraffa's view of the dynamics of capitalism.     

Can We Meaningfully Speak of Changes in Price under the Regime of Changes in Techniques?

Abstract

This paper presents a simulation exercise on Sraffa's system under various types of technical changes to show that the direction of changes in prices of commodities is contingent on the choice of the numeraire. Thus, such a comparison of prices in two systems turns out to be meaningless. This result points to the arbitrary nature of the neoclassical supply functions, as they inevitably compare prices across several Sraffa systems on the basis of an arbitrarily chosen numeraire. We anticipated such a result from our reading of Sraffa as part of his ‘prelude to a critique of economic theory’.     

Long-period Positions and Economic Change. A rejoinder

Roncaglia and Nell have criticised the interpretation of Sraffa's normal prices as centres of gravitation for actual prices. Roncaglia mainly focuses on the interpretation of the notion of gravitation in Smith and on the meaning of the ‘given outputs’ in Sraffa. Nell attempts to confine the relevance of Sraffa's theory to specific historical circumstances and to find a role for Sraffa's prices in his version of post-Keynesian price theory. This rejoinder criticises the case made by both Roncaglia and Nell, and defends Sraffa's centre of gravitation view.     

Pigou,Del Vecchio,and Sraffa: the 1955 International “Antonio Feltrinelli” Prize for the Economic and Social Sciences

In 1955, the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei awarded the inaugural International “Feltrinelli” Prize for the Economic and Social Sciences to Arthur Cecil Pigou. This paper considers Gustavo Del Vecchio's active role on the selection committee in recommending Pigou for the Feltrinelli Prize and the related correspondence between Pigou, Piero Sraffa, and Del Vecchio. One of the most significant discovery reported in this paper is Sraffa's contention, expressed in an unpublished letter to Del Vecchio, that Pigou had “never been honoured in proportion to his merits.”     

Krishna Bharadwaj's “Return to Classical Theory”: an attempt towards an archaeological reconstruction

Abstract

In the wake of Sraffa's ‘return to classical theory’, Krishna Bharadwaj undertook a critical reassessment of Marshall's claim to continuity with classical theory in general and Ricardo's ‘intensive margin’ in particular. Her analysis is based on an analytical separation between two distinct ways of economic reasoning: the ‘surplus based’ and the ‘demand and supply based’ theories. Calling it an ‘archaeological reconstruction’ of the history of economic theories, I will examine how such an interpretation of theoretical shifts clarifies both the presuppositions behind analysing at the ‘margin’, and hence its radical departure from the conceptual content of the classical theory.     

The economic contributions of Paul Sweezy

This paper offers a critical appraisal of the work of Paul M. Sweezy (1910-2004). After a brief biographical summary, the following sections deal with Sweezy's early writings; his book, The Theory of Capitalist Development; his thinking on socialism; his contribution as an historian of events and of ideas; the Monopoly Capital, co-authored with Paul Baran; and Sweezy's work after the death of Baran in 1964. The paper concludes with an assessment of Sweezy's significance, and a comprehensive bibliography of his writings.     

Notes on a Mischaracterization of the Classical Theory of Value

This paper discusses the widespread view that the classical determination of relative prices is closely connected to the study of the conditions allowing for the 'reproduction' of the economy. It is argued that this view obscures the generality of Sraffa's contribution and, furthermore, that it does not provide a solid criterion for distinguishing the classical from the marginalist approach to the theory of value.     

On re-reading Joan Robinson's ‘On re-reading Marx’

This paper offers some reflections inspired by a re-reading of Joan Robinson's On Re-reading Marx on the 50th anniversary of its initial publication. Robinson wrote the pamphlet in the light of Sraffa's Introduction to Ricardo's Works and Correspondence, which suggested to her that the concept of the rate of profit was essentially the same in Ricardo, Marx, Marshall and Keynes. In addition to the connections among Ricardo, Marx, Marshall and Keynes, Robinson also addresses the issues of equilibrium and time, and the dogmatism of Marxism.