The Cambridge Tradition in Economics: An interview with G. C. Harcourt

Geoffrey Colin Harcourt has devoted a long and fruitful career to the development of themes associated with the Cambridge and Post-Keynesian traditions in economics. He is perhaps best known for his survey of the Cambridge capital theory debates (1972); but he has written widely on growth and investment, on effective demand, on pricing and distribution, and on the history of economics in the twentieth century. He has also written extensively on policy (2001a) and was a 'back room boy' for the Australian Labor Party for many years. During the Vietnam War, Harcourt was a leader of the anti-war movement in South Australia. The following interview focuses on the evolution of, and prospects for, the Cambridge tradition that stems from the work of John Maynard Keynes, Piero Sraffa, Joan Robinson, Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor and Michal Kalecki. The interview took place in Professor Harcourt's rooms in Jesus College, Cambridge, on 5 September 2000.     

The interaction between Leontief and Sraffa: No meeting,no citation,no attention?

Abstract

Samuelson often regretted that Leontief and Sraffa never cited each other (true), and seemed to pay no attention to the other's work (false). In the Foley interview Leontief suggested he never met Sraffa (false). Archival evidence shows that in the 1940s Sraffa studied Leontief's classic The Structure of American Economy; he also owned the rare mimeographed supplement, and did some calculations on Leontief's first input–output table. Leontief and Sraffa met in Cambridge (UK) in 1950 and later. In the 1980s Leontief wrote an ambitious empirical paper on technological change, rejected by the AER, and not widely read. It studied some Sraffian topics without Sraffian terminology. I construct a hypothetical reswitching example using Leontief's statistics.     

Richard Kahn's fellowship dissertation: The fate of ‘The Economics of the Short Period’

Abstract

In 1930, Richard Kahn became a fellow of King's College, Cambridge, on the basis of his book-length dissertation ‘The Economics of the Short Period.’ It was finally published in the 1980s. Why did he not publish his thesis in the 1930s, when it would have made a substantial impact? We present two arguments. In 1932/33, Joan Robinson published many of Kahn's main ideas, rendering subsequent publication by him derivative. And by the mid-1930s, Kahn discovered that parts of his dissertation left untouched by Robinson were no longer new or distinctive because of rapid progress in research on imperfect and monopolistic competition.     

A Sraffian interpretation of classical monetary controversies

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore the contrasting views of inflation, exchange rate misalignments and determinants of gold flows held by different branches of the classical school during the first half of the nineteenth century. The properties of money neutrality and money endogeneity within the classical system are studied by reinterpreting these controversies through the analytical framework of the surplus approach as reconstructed by Sraffa [Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960] and his followers.     

Mill versus Jevons on traditional sexual division of labour: Is gender equality efficient?

Abstract

The question of the legitimacy of traditional sexual division of labour receives growing attention from contemporary economists. In particular, a debate takes place between the “New Home Economics”, which stresses the efficiency of the traditional arrangement and economists questioning the justice of the relations between sexes. The same kind of opposition appears between two Victorian economists: J.S. Mill and W.S. Jevons. Although both are utilitarian, they adopt contrary views about the relative importance of efficiency and justice in the definition of appropriate gender relations. While Mill aims at conciliating justice and utility, Jevons considers that utility outweighs justice.     

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’.     

Sraffa’s Constructive and Interpretive Work,and Marx

ABSTRACT

This article provides a summary account of Piero Sraffa’s constructive and interpretive work on the classical approach to the theory of value and distribution and its relationship with Marx’s contributions. It is shown that in the early phase of his constructive work Sraffa developed his equation systems by adopting a ‘physical real cost’ approach and a strictly objectivist point of view, and completely eschewed Marx’s labour-based approach and the related Marxian concepts. Only at a later stage did he explore systematically the relationship between his own modern re-formulation of the surplus approach to the theory of value and distribution and Marx’s contribution. He considered Marx’s most important analytical contribution to the further development of the surplus approach to consist of the re-integration of circular production relations, which allowed him to see the existence of a maximum rate of profits and its role in an analysis of accumulation and technical change.     

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.     

Economists on Darwin's theory of social evolution and human behaviour

Abstract

This article analyses Darwin's image among economists with a specific focus on his theory of social evolution as presented in the Descent of Man (1871). We propose an analysis of the way and context in which economists refer to Darwin, mention his name and quote his writings. It then appears that Darwin is most of the time viewed as a biologist only, who never developed his own theory of social evolution. He is thus quoted as a biologist who either borrowed concepts from economists who developed a theory of social evolution, or laid the basis for biological theory of social evolution developed by others, Spencer, in particular. It is only recently that eventually the twofold dimensions—biological and social—of Darwin's general theory of evolution are considered together by bioeconomists.     

The friendship between Piero Sraffa and Antonio Gramsci in the years 1919-1927

This paper is part of a research on Piero Sraffa's biography and studies the relationship between Piero Sraffa and the Italian Communist leader and political theoretician Antonio Gramsci during the years 1919–1927. This period extends from the beginning of their friendship to the first year of Gramsci's imprisonment (he was arrested in November 1926), which was also the year of Sraffa's departure for England, where he settled as a lecturer at the University of Cambridge.     

Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success

Abstract

This essay is a comment on“The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics”by Frances Woolley, which appeared in Feminist Economics, Vol. 11, No. 3, November 2005.

This contribution comments on Frances Woolley's recent Feminist Economics article, “The Citation Impact of Feminist Economics.” It points to two avenues through which Woolley's article could have better illuminated the extent of Feminist Economics' scholarly relationship with the communities of both heterodox and mainstream economists: first, she omits several important heterodox economic journals in her study, and second, she could have offered a more critical evaluation of mainstream journals and economists relative to Feminist Economics and feminist economists. This paper uses citation data drawn from ten heterodox and ten mainstream journals to identify and build on these gaps.     

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’.     

The wages‐and‐profits fund: Classical remnants in Marshall's early theory of distribution

Abstract

This paper traces the development of Marshall's theory of wages from the late 1860s to the publication of the first edition of the Principles of Economics (1890). Section one attempts to unravel Marshall's recollections of early intellectual influences, many of which were often distorted or wrong. Specifically, J. S. Mill's, Fleeming Jenkin's and J. H. von Thünen's influence on Marshall's early theory of distribution is explored in this context. In section two, analyses of Marshall's theory of wages in Economics of Industry (1879) and in other published writings is presented. This section draws attention to the similarity between Marshall's treatment of wages and the classical wage fund doctrine. In the final section, we re‐examine Marshall's defence of his theory of value and distribution in the Economics of Industry in the face of criticism of it by American economists S. M. MacVane and J. L. Laughlin in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.     

Sraffa and von Neumann

This paper discusses the relationship between Piero Sraffa's 1960 book and John von Neumann's 1937 paper on economic growth in the light of some of the material contained in Sraffa's unpublished papers and correspondence. It is argued that the two contributions share a similar outlook and exhibit conceptual parallels; in fact, they can both be said to belong to the 'classical' approach to the theory of value and distribution. The latter is characterized, among other things, by an asymmetric treatment of the distributive variables, the rate of return on capital and the real wage rate. Sraffa's papers show that when he came across the von Neumann model in the mid-1940s his own analysis was already quite advanced, including his analysis of joint production. The paper also contains an exchange of letters between John Richard Hicks and Sraffa on some of the issues dealt with in the latter's book.     

The neglect of replacement investment in keynesian economics

Abstract

This article describes Keynes's early analysis of replacement investment and his subsequent neglect of the subject, especially by his followers. It goes on to explain how this deficiency helped to mislead later economists who attempted to use Keynes as a guide for economic policy and theory and the consequences of the errors of these economists.     

Sarantis Archigenes (Serandi Arşizen), Pellegrino Rossi and the spread of the classical approach in the Ottoman Empire

Abstract

Although he succeeded Say at the College de France as chair in 1833, Pellegrino Rossi is not considered a great economist nor has he been appreciated as an original one. However, his lectures in the College de France inspired a young Ottoman-Greek, Sarantis Archigenes, who wrote a political economy book which discussed the economic problems of the Ottoman Empire of the mid-nineteenth century. This article provides an account of the traces of Rossi's ideas in the formation of Archigenes' views, with an aim to present Rossi's role in the dissemination of Classical political economic ideas in the Ottoman lands.     

Sraffa,Myrdal, and the 1961 Söderström Gold Medal

In this paper, we give an account of the awarding of the 1961 Söderström Gold Medal to Piero Sraffa by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien). We highlight the central role that Gunnar Myrdal played in the allocation of this prize to Sraffa and the amicable relationship between these two economists, as well as their views on Ricardian economics. In addition, we provide details of Sraffa's activities in Stockholm, including his attendance at the award ceremony. In our final remarks, we reflect on the significance of the 1961 Söderström Gold Medal for the history of economics as a field of study.     

The diversity of models as a means to better explanations in economics

ABSTRACT

In Economics Rules, Rodrik [(2015). Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press] argues that what makes economics powerful despite the limitations of each and every model is its diversity of models. Rodrik suggests that the diversity of models in economics improves its explanatory capacities, but he does not fully explain how. I offer a clearer picture of how models relate to explanations of particular economic facts or events, and suggest that the diversity of models is a means to better economic explanations.     

Philosophy of Economics Rules: introduction to the symposium

ABSTRACT

Economists have long been criticized for their use of highly idealized models. In Economics rules: Why economics works, when it fails, and how to tell the difference [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015] Dani Rodrik responds to this criticism by offering an account of models that emphasizes the diversity of models in economics. Rodrik’s account presents a rare opportunity for economists and philosophers of economics to engage in a mutually beneficial exchange that could improve our understanding of the power and limits of economics, and the rights and wrongs of the dismal science. The symposium on Rodrik’s Economics Rules is the first attempt to seize this opportunity.     

Sen after Putnam

Modern classical economic theory, originally austere and minimalist (as in Sraffa and Neumann), has entered a second, more enriched phase. Inspired by Adam Smith, Amartya Sen has drawn out the moral implications of formal classical models. But Sen remains open to neoclassical attack on the grounds that science must be value free. In his book The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays , Hilary Putnam rebuts the view that "fact is fact and value is value and never the twain shall meet". This paper explores consequences of this argument for classical theory. It explains the nature and significance of the entanglement of facts, analysis and values; and the impact of this entanglement on the concept of rationality, on capability theory, on the relationship between human needs and Sraffa basics, on Pasinetti's transformational growth, and on Sen's analysis of the disabled and most wretched. Supporting Sen's approach to human development, it opens the possibility of an enriched classical analysis, which can absorb Martha Nussbaum's analysis of tragedy using a logically and morally coherent political economy.