Joan Robinson and the three cambridge revolutions

Joan Robinson's association with three Cambridge ‘revolutions’—imperfect competition, effective demand and capital theory—is examined in the context of her personal and intellectual partnership with Richard Kahn, John Maynard Keynes and Piero Sraffa. Initially, imperfect competition appeared to have successfully extended marginal analysis to all market forms. It also allowed Richard Kahn and Joan Robinson to persuade Keynes to present the main argument of The General Theory in terms of aggregate demand and aggregate supply. By the early 1950s, however, Joan Robinson had rejected the Marshallian methodology and had become a strenuous censor of neoclassical theory. In this paper the origin of her critique is traced to her reading of Sraffa's Introduction to Ricardo's Principles.     

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.     

Report card on Sraffa at 100

Sraffa is lauded for (a) his magnificent editing of Ricardo's writings and (b) his 1960 classic on Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Regretted is the shortfall from his unlimited potential to his sparse bibliography of publications and oral lecturing, and his diffidence as an editor to interpret and criticize his classical heroes. Admired by Keynes and Wittgenstein and friend to the Marxist Antonio Gramsci, Piero was a much loved character. Because of, and not in spite of, the fact that he early lacked sympathy for the general equilibrium methodology and the mixed-economy ideology that dominated twentieth century mainstream economics, Sraffa was able to uniquely add value to the corpus of economic science.     

Reading Sraffa's Indices – a note *

Piero Sraffa took thirteen years to publish the General Indexto The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo.The Index is compared to others and is shown to be exceptional in that it leads the way to specific interpretations of Ricardo's life and theory. The choice of entries referring to theory is based on Ricardo's own concepts and carefully avoids neoricardian, Marxian and neoclassical terms. Examples discussed concern ‘comparative advantage’ and ‘value’ The entries referring to Ricardo's life are proof of Sraffa's broad historical interests and focus on certain characteristics of Ricardo.     

Classical political economy: the subsistence wage,and job guarantee concerns

Abstract:

In the theoretical framework of classical political economy, including the revisions of Marx and the more recent work of Piero Sraffa and others, the concept of the subsistence wage figures prominently. Here, following a recounting of this concept and demonstrating its significance not only for classical theory but also for larger social concerns, I argue that the “base wage” (as it is sometimes termed) as articulated within a “Job Guarantee” program, is (or should be) comparable to the subsistence wage but requires modification to make it (roughly) equivalent. It will be demonstrated that adherents of the classical approach did not rest their wage theory on a quasi-neoclassical supply–demand approach (with some primitive marginal productivity notion lying behind a supposed demand for labor schedule), but understood wages as socially determined where institutional and historic forces established a normative standard around which market wages gravitated. Such an approach was shared by, among others, Thorstein Veblen and John Maynard Keynes.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

International Trade Union Organizations

An attempt is made in this article to demonstrate that Alfred Marshall and John Maynard Keynes erected a number of signposts that point in the direction of a normative, institutional and policy-oriented social economics of labor. They opined that dysfunctioning institutions had thrown most members of the working class into an abyss of poverty. According to Marshall, poverty was caused by institutional neglect of education for the masses. Hence he recommended a drastic overhaul of those institutions that impinged on education. Keynes argued that the rentiers were the villains because they had intentionally reduced their funding of entrepreneurial investments. Consequently, investments dwindled and unemployment caused working-class poverty to rise above its customary levels. Keynes's solution was public investment in private enterprises, which he called socialization of investment. This would cause euthanasia of the anti-social rentiers. Because of their recommendations, Marshall and Keynes called themselves socialists.     

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.     

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.     

Vicarelli’s Keynes (and today’s international disorder)

The article speculates about the legacy of Fausto Vicarelli’s interpretation of John Maynard Keynes’s work in the times of a major global crisis. In particular, it puts an emphasis on those aspects of Keynes’s “method” that Vicarelli rightly considered as revolutionary in his Keynes, of 1977, as well as in other writings. The article then turns to Vicarelli’s reconstruction of Keynes’s early work in international economics (Indian Currency and Finance, Economic Consequences of the Peace) and reflects upon the continuing relevance of the philosophy inspiring Keynes’s plans of global reform in the Forties, also in the light of Vicarelli’s (Keynes-inspired) vision of the problem of policy space at the international level.     

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.”     

The Economic Problem of Happiness: Keynes on Happiness and Economics

By stressing the substantial continuity of vision between John Maynard Keynes’s early unpublished essays and his more mature writings, the paper discusses Keynes’s ethics and focuses on his thoughts about happiness. In particular, we emphasize the anti-utilitarianism of Keynes’s vision and his belief that material wealth is but a precondition to enjoy the possibilities of a good life, and direct attention to problems of incommensurability raised by the multidimensional nature of happiness as considered by Keynes. We then argue that the rediscovery of Keynes’s legacy in this respect may be a precious counterweight to the most controversial aspects of today’s happiness research.     

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.     

Reply to Gehrke

This paper responds to Christian Gehrke's comment, and argues that the main conclusion of my earlier paper is sustained—that, contrary to Sraffa, Marx did not ‘adopt’ in any sense of the word the joint product method of treating fixed capital. It agrees with Gehrke that Torrens adopted a form of the joint product method, and that Malthus seems to have followed Torrens in this regard. However, it argues that Ricardo did not adopt the joint product method, not even in the one instance cited by Sraffa. Finally, it argues briefly that Marx's ‘transformation of value’ method of treating fixed capital and depreciation is superior to Sraffa's joint product method.     

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.     

An account of the Washington Lend Lease negotiations 1944 by E. A. G. Robinson

In September 1944, John Maynard Keynes set sail for Washingtonwhere Keynes was to be a key negotiator in the talks leadingup to Stage II of Lend Lease. Accompanying him and his wifewas Keynes's colleague and friend, E. A. G. (Austin) Robinson.Robinson's role was to be Head of Programmes Division for theMinistry of Production. While Keynes would deal with Harry Whiteand Henry Morgenthau, Robinson was involved with the underlyingproduction of a case for the urgent financial needs of war-timeBritain. Robinson saw the tensions at all levels of daily lifeand he recorded his demanding times in a series of letters hometo his wife, Joan Robinson. These letters are published herefor the first time.     

A Nightmare in Introductory Economics

In a pair of 1925 lectures, John Maynard Keynes described world economic history with reference to a classification of stages developed by John R. Commons. This article examines Keynes’s two 1925 lectures in the context of Commons’s writings. It spotlights lesser-known aspects of Commons’s scholarship and helps clarify ambiguities in Keynes’s two addresses. It also identifies a key document, written by Commons, upon which Keynes relied when developing his presentations. In addition, the article explains how the work of Commons and Keynes in the 1920s has relevance for the contemporary development of evolutionary Keynesianism (which can also be called Post-Keynesian Institutionalism).     

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.