A Reassessment of Marx's Thought on Labour Exchange

This article reassesses Marx's thought on labour exchange and illuminates its worth. In the Grundrisse and subsequent pre-Capital writings, Marx presented arguments that attached importance to worker subjectivity towards labour performance based on the distinction between labour capacity and labour. This afforded insights into the peculiarities of labour exchange that preclude market determination of wages and other working conditions and necessitate the intervention of class struggle and other socio-political factors in their settlement. The significance of Marx's perspective is further elucidated when compared with the classical tradition and the position of neoclassical economics. Although his emphasis on worker autonomy receded in Capital, his earlier arguments on labour exchange, it is posited, remain highly relevant to understanding industrial relations in today's capitalist economy.     

Index Volume XII – 1978

This paper presents and evaluates Don Lescohier's contribution to labor economics, and specifically to labor market policy. Lescohier, a prominent member of the Wisconsin Institutional School, put the labor market in the center of his investigations and tried to examine many of the factors that determine its efficient functioning, differentiating his study from the labor studies that focused on the individual — mainly union — worker. His analysis was essentially influenced by the progressive political climate of his time, the heterodox thought of some "non-Marshallian" British economists like Beveridge, and the newly emergent field of personnel management. Lescohier ardently proposed the creation of a federal-state centralized system of employment offices, which would undertake the difficult task of organizing the American labor market after the end of World War I. His work constituted both an interesting and significant case study, and thus deserves a higher position in the history of labor economics.     

Pareto's ‘Chronicles’ in Relation to his Sociology

The ‘second series’ of the Giornale degli Economisti commenced in 1890 and established itself as the leading Italian vehicle for the dissemination of the new marginalist economics. From 1891 it also included a special feature entitled ‘cronaca’, which critically chronicled practical developments in Italian public policy, public finances and the state of the economy. Vilfredo Pareto was the regular author of the chronicles between 1893 and 1897. This study provides the context necessary for an appreciation of the juxtaposition evident in Pareto's chronicles between his radical-liberal critique of leading Italian politicians and his relatively gentle commentary on some Italian leaders associated with the extreme left. It also identifies attributes from Pareto's chronicles that extended, albeit in a modified form, to his 1916 Trattato di Sociologia Generale. In both instances: the actual political world is characterised on a similar basis; criticism is undertaken on a brutal, sarcastic and often polemic manner; and the left–right political divide is treated as a relatively low-order issue.     

Economists,social reformers,and prophets: a feminist critique of economic efficiency

This article examines the concept of Pareto optimality, bringing to light some of its implicit assumptions about the nature of human agency, work, and gender. It explores the androcentric character of the economic agent and the gendered nature of neoclassical models in relation to the historical development of the concept of economic efficiency during the late 1930s. The thrust toward the development of Pareto optimality as a scientific criterion of economic welfare was a response to the methodological tensions between the clearly political nature of economics and the scientific aspirations of economists. An examination of the debates from this period illuminates some of the values that became embedded in neoclassical economics, and which are now hidden by the masks of mathematics and abstraction.     

Off the Record: Reconstructing Women's Labor Force Participation in the European Past

Abstract

Conventional histories of women's labor force participation in Europe conceptualize the trends in terms of a U-shaped pattern. This contribution draws on historical research to challenge such an account. First, it demonstrates that the trough in participation is in part statistically manufactured by uncritical reliance on official sources that systematically undercount women workers. Second, it exploits nonstandard sources to construct alternative estimates of women's participation. Third, it analyzes the reconstructed rates to determine their congruence with neoclassical economics and modern empirical studies. Not all posited relationships time travel. Supply-side factors such as marital status and number and age of children are major determinants of modern women's decision to enter the labor force, yet appear less prominent in historical contexts. Instead, the demand for labor seems decisive. Finally, the U-shaped curve is not entirely a statistical artifact, but appears to evolve at higher levels of participation than usually suggested.     

Economic inequality and paretian welfare economics: Some insinuating questions

This paper examines the academic soundness of the Pareto welfare criterion as a normative rule for evaluating alternative economic inequality scenarios and suggests that the criterion has several weaknesses, which weaken its usefulness. First, the Pareto principle is of limited use in the inequality debate because labor markets hardly satisfy the conditions of perfect competition, the pivotal assumption of the theory. Second, the proposition that competitive equilibrium leads to the “common good” of society is difficult to defend. Third, the Paretian welfare economics barely answers the questions society demands, because perfect competition does not guarantee fairness in the determination of relative prices in the initial situation of income distribution. Fourth, in the distribution theory, the marginal productivity principle determines the rewards to the factors of production. If we assume that rent, wage and interest incomes are determined by this theory, then questions arise about how profits, the potentially huge surpluses generated by the businesses, are distributed. Fifth, income distribution, being a public policy topic, is a political issue. However, Pareto's primary motivation in formulating the principle was to alienate the income distribution debate from political and policy discourses. Finally, by invoking the Pareto principle, economists are in fact avoiding the real issues of the public debate on personal distribution of income. Personal income distribution truly refers to division of income generated by a group of people working together and therefore, ought to be analysed with reference to the sector of employment. Thus, Tommy Franks' earning should be compared with that of a private, while an ordinary worker's salary should be compared with that of the CEO. History testifies that the public earning structure is much more equitable than that of the private sector. This poses a very serious question: Which earning structure reflects improvement in social welfare: public or private?     

The exchange paradigm of constitutional economics: implications for understanding the third sector

This paper reconsiders the exchange paradigm of constitutional economics from the perspective of the theory of the division of labor. According to this theory, human wants can be satisfied by two basic mechanisms—exchange and self-sufficiency. The exchange paradigm of constitutional economics emphasizes the former mechanism while neglecting the latter. Building on major economic theories of the third sector, it is argued that the latter mechanism is more helpful than the former in explaining the existence of third sector organizations. The paper concludes by discussing implications of this argument for the further development of constitutional economics.      

"Never Intended to be a Theory Of Everything": Domestic Labor in Neoclassical and Marxian Economics

This article is a comparative study of the treatment of domestic labor by neoclassical and Marxian economists. Before 1960, mainstream economics concentrated on production for the market, with serious analysis of housework confined to a handful of economists, whose efforts in this regard were marginalized by economics departments but supported by departments of home economics. Later mainstream analyses, first in agricultural economics and then in human capital theory, culminated in Gary Becker's "new household economics." Domestic labor was also neglected by Marxist thinkers, who argued that housework was being socialized under capitalism and would disappear altogether under socialism, but it was rediscovered by Marxist-feminists in the late 1960s. Housework continues, however, to pose serious analytical difficulties for both neoclassical and Marxian economists.     

“民工荒”问题的破解基于新兴古典经济学视角的分析

自2004年中国东南沿海出现劳动力短缺后,“民工荒”问题已经成为中国经济发展过程中阻碍经济增长的一个难题,同时“民工荒”问题也成为学术界研究的一个热点问题,一方面“民工荒”有逐年加大的趋势,另一方面中国的经济却又能保持持续的高速增长。对于这一问题的解释,传统的观点认为,农民工数量的绝对减少是导致“民工荒”产生的原因,即解决“民工荒”难题的方法是建立在新古典经济学基础之上的,这就导致了“民工荒”难题是无解的,即人口红利和中国的计划生育政策是不相容的。而如果从新兴古典经济学视角出发,将“民工荒”难题看成是古典经济学的“两难冲突”,即劳动力稀缺程度本身不是固定的,则可以通过劳动分工来提高生产力,从而达到减少稀缺资源（劳动力）稀缺的程度,进而破解“民工荒”带来的难题,较好地解释“民工荒”和经济增长之间的关系。     

Japanese Consumption,External Disequilibrium and their Statistical Measurement

Georgescu-Roegen's work is usually divided into two categories, his earlier work on consumer and production theory and his later concern with entropy and bioeconomics beginning with his 1966 introductory essay to his collected theoretical papers published in the volume Analytical Economics. Most economists usually praise his earlier work on pure theory and ignore his later work which is highly critical of neoclassical economics. Those economists sympathetic to his later work usually take the position that he “saw the light” and gave up neoclassical theory some time in the 1960s to turn his attention to the issues of resource scarcity and social institutions. It is argued here that there is an unbroken path running from Georgescu's work in pure theory in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, through his writings on peasant economies in the 1960s, leading to his preoccupation with entropy and bioeconomics in the last 25 years of his life. That common thread is his preoccupation with “valuation.” The choices our species makes about resource use and the distribution of economic output depends upon our valuation framework. Georgescu-Roegen's work begins in the 1930s with a critical examination of the difficulties with the hedonistic valuation framework of neoclassical economics, moves in the 1960s to the conflict between social and hedonistic valuation, and culminates in the 1970s and 1980s with his examination of the conflict between individual, social, and environmental values. This paper traces the evolution of Georgescu-Roegen's thought about valuation and the environmental and social policy recommendations which arise out of his bioeconomic framework.     

The Fault Line between Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A Review Essay

This essay reviews Michael Ambrosi's important but neglected book on the formative period of Keynesian economics. The book traces the evolution of a Cambridge macroeconomic tradition running from Marshall and Pigou to Keynes, and interprets The General Theory as a response to Pigou's analysis of unemployment. Ambrosi also argues that Keynes's disciples, Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor and Joan Robinson, were, in the 1930s, wedded to a Pigovian methodology and did not immediately recognise that Keynes had redefined the meaning of equilibrium in The General Theory. Keynes's attempt to redefine the analytical basis of neoclassical economics was thwarted, not merely by the neoclassical synthesis, but by those who claimed to be the inheritors and guardians of his vision.     

The New Economics of Labor Migration: Beware of Neoclassicals Bearing Gifts

Abstract

Until the emergence of the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) in the 1980s, migration scholars were largely divided into two main theoretical camps, viz. the neoclassical and historical-structural approaches to migration. Against this background, the NELM presented itself as a theoretical ‘third way’ between the two latter approaches, and purported to reconcile agency and structure in a way previously unachieved by either of them. While those pretensions gained a fair amount of acceptance and popularity, this paper argues that they are fundamentally misleading, and that the NELM is little more than a slightly more sophisticated avatar of the neoclassical approach to migration, whose fundamental weaknesses it has not, and cannot, shed. This paper further argues that, in so doing, the NELM effectively constitutes migration theory's own instance of economics imperialism, i.e. the attempt to advance the fundamental tenets of neoclassical economics (methodological individualism and the assumption of optimizing rationality) within the context of the study and interpretation of various social phenomena. In order to put forth these arguments, this paper provides a summary presentation of the standard neoclassical theory of migration, the historical-structural heterodoxy and the NELM; highlights why it is that the NELM should be regarded as a ‘reworked’ version of the neoclassical theoretical framework and discusses its inception in the context of the ‘information-theoretic revolution’ in economics; and argues for a new and improved ‘historical-structural synthesis’ as a more satisfactory alternative to both the NELM and the standard neoclassical theory.     

Lachmann and the wilderness: On Lachmann's radical subjectivism

Abstract

This paper deals with the question why in the 1940s and 1950s Ludwig Lachmann (1906–1990) failed to revive Austrian economics. Lake Keynes and Hayek, Lachmann pointed out that expectations, and hence knowledge, are important determinants of (cyclical fluctuations in) investment and economic activity. He thereby emphasized that the process of knowledge acquisition is indeterminate and open‐ended. This indeterminateness is difficult to reconcile with neoclassical attempts to provide economics with internally consistent microfoundations. This fundamental difference between his and the neoclassical research agenda explains Lachmann's failure to revive Austrian economics.     

Colonising Space: The New Economic Geography in Theory and Practice

The New Economic Geography (NEG) incorporates social space into neoclassical models, and claims to provide an explanation of uneven development within the parameters of economic orthodoxy. It is among the most influential recent innovations in mainstream economics – Paul Krugman was awarded the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics for his contributions to the NEG, and it provided the theoretical inspiration for the World Bank's 2009 World Development Report. Drawing on the work of David Harvey and Henri Lefebvre, this article interprets the NEG as a colonising project in both its theoretical claims and its practical applications. Theoretically, the NEG colonises the disciplinary terrain of economic geography while replacing its substantive content with the abstractions of neoclassical economics. In practical terms, the NEG has been instrumental in the World Bank's ‘new spatial approach to development’, which aims to fully colonise peripheral regions of the global economy through constructing the spatial infrastructures necessary for globalised production and exchange. The social contradictions implicit in this project are revealed in the case of the Plan Puebla Panamá, a regional development programme for southern Mexico and Central America, based on the NEG, and identified by the World Bank as a prototype for its spatial approach to development. The article thus provides a critique of the NEG as a theoretical approach and as a policy tool, demonstrating the increasing significance of the production of space within the neoliberal project, and cautioning against the transformation of socio-spatial reality in the image of technocratic abstractions.     

整合技术概念及对新古典就业理论的反思

笔者提出整合技术概念，即所有的工人整合在一起操作生产系统；如果任何一名工人缺失，则生产系统不能运行。如果一种技术严格具有整合技术的性质，那么在到达能使生产系统运行之前，工人的边际产品为零。如果增加一名工人生产系统就可运行，则这名工人的边际产品等于总产品。如果再增加一名工人的边际产品为零，则边际产品曲线退化为一条垂直线。新古典边际劳动生产率理论认为，厂商雇闸工人的工资等于劳动的边际产品，但这一理论显然不适合整合技术。因此，要研究在更一般条件下厂商雇用决策的机制。采用整合技术的概念可以对很多经济学的理论问题进行重新思考。     

Technology and Oliver Williamson's transaction cost economics

Oliver Williamson has greatly contributed to refining neoclassical economics by incorporating transaction costs and internal organization; yet, his new institutional economics too easily dismisses the role of technology. In doing so, he has replaced the determinism of technological production efficiencies with the determinism of transaction cost efficiencies. A review shows that Williamson's new institutionalism has evolved through three stages in terms of the focus of his analysis and his views of transactions. Throughout this evolution, however, his proposed solutions to organizational failures have actually continued to rely heavily upon technology.     

Keynes,Ricardo and the classical theory of interest

Keynes made harsh and repeated attacks on the work of Ricardo, blaming him particulary for what Keynes called the ‘classical theory’ of interest. Garegnani and others argue that Keynes' criticisms of the classical theory of interest apply to later neoclassical writers, but not to Ricardo. This paper re-examines Keynes' criticisms. It argues that Keynes attacked Ricardoapos;s theory of interest despite his awareness that Ricardo did not hold the ‘classical theory’. Moreover, Keynes not only expressed sympathy for Ricardo's understanding of interest, but his criticisms which do apply to Ricardo do not address Ricardo's theory of interest.     

The Social Economics of Work Time: Introduction

How do social economists conceptualize and analyze time, particularly time spent in paid employment? In this symposium regarding this quite “timely”" issue, it is evident that social economics views work time as something more than its presentation in neoclassical economics. For neoclassical economists, time is a scarce resource that, when commodified as labor, serves as a factor of production and means to the end of consumption for optimizing firms, individuals, and families. It is also more than the radical political economics understanding of time as the yardstick measuring the value created by labor. Instead, time spent on the job is all at once a source of income, personal identity, and relative status within society, the workplace and household, and a constraint on individuals' ability to pursue self-directed activities and social reproduction. Work time is determined within a complex web of evolving culture and social relations, as well as traditionally conceived market, technological, and macroeconomic forces and institutions such as collective bargaining and government policy.     

Austrian economics and value judgments: a critical comparison with Neoclassical Economics

This article points out the limits of Austrian economics as far as the passage from positive to normative economics is concerned. We propose a comparison with neoclassical economics and discuss the different theoretical solutions adopted by these two schools of thought in their legitimization of the normative discourse. The bridge from positive to normative economics is analyzed as resting upon two interdependent pillars, one of a technical nature, the other of an ethical one. In neoclassical theory, these two pillars are, respectively, the Pareto principle and the so-called minimal benevolence principle. In the case of Austrian economics, they are the coordination principle and a set of value judgments considered to be ‘quasi-universal’. One problem for Austrian economics is that the coordination principle turns out to be incompatible with process analysis, the latter being a central tenet of the Austrian theory. A second problem, which creates serious difficulties for both schools, has to do with distribution. Our thesis is that whereas the neoclassical solution of the distributive problem is formally consistent (although deeply unrealistic), the Austrian solution is theoretically untenable and based on strong, although implicit, value judgments.