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’.     

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.     

On the ‘Origins’ of Sraffa’s Production Equations: A Reply to de Vivo

In this rejoinder to de Vivo’s comment on Gehrke and Kurz (2018, ‘Sraffa’s constructive and interpretive work, and Marx.’ Review of Political Economy) we first ask what could possibly be meant by seeking to identify the ‘origins’ of Sraffa’s production equations. We then show that in his comment de Vivo has abandoned his original view, according to which the magnitudes in Sraffa’s ‘first equations’ are to be interpreted in Marxian (labour) value terms, without advising the reader. In addition, we show that his ‘new’ view is not supported by evidence from Sraffa’s papers. De Vivo misconstrues several propositions of Sraffa and misunderstands his ‘reduction method’ by means of which the values of commodities are reduced to some basic product or to labour. The criticisms de Vivo levels at the interpretation advocated by us are without any foundation.     

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’.     

Marx on Ricardo: an explanation of some important misunderstandings

Ricardo's theory of value and distribution is reconstructed by proceeding along the lines of Marx's critique of Ricardo. It is thus an anti-critique of Marx's reading of Ricardo. The chapter ‘On Value’ in Ricardo's Principles is shown to be a consistent and rigorous treatment of the determinants of prices of production. According to Ricardo labor-values merely serve to approximate more elaborate standards of value. Marx's criticism is shown to rest crucially on his own misinterpretation of Ricardo's definitions and presupposes his own – faulty – theory of surplus value. Therefore Ricardo's theory can – contrary to Marx's theory of surplus value – still be regarded as a fruitful complement to Sraffa's model.     

Marx and Sraffa: A Comment on Gehrke and Kurz

This comment focuses on the assertion by Gehrke and Kurz (2018) that the origin of the equations which formed the backbone of Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities is not related in any way to Marx, and particularly Marx’s reproduction schemes, as argued by the late Giorgio Gilibert and myself. This comment argues that the 2018 article by Gehrke and Kurz makes significant—but unacknowledged—retreats from positions previously presented by the authors, and that the relevance of Marx and his reproduction schemes for the origin of Sraffa’s (1960) work for Production of Commodities is beyond reasonable doubt.     

Classical and Neoclassical harmonies and dissonances

Abstract

Proofs are given that only singularly can real 1750 – 2007 competitive price ratios be ‘natural', in the sense of being invariant under changes in demand tastes. Proofs are given that both 1750 – 1870 discrete technologies or 1890 – 2007 continuum technologies, with convexity properties sufficient for arbitrage-proof supply-demand equilibria, will be ‘intertemporally Pareto optimal', immune to leaving any deadweight (inefficient) losses on the table. Sraffa (1960), ignoring the vast post-1945 linear and non-linear programming mathematical literature of Danzig, Kuhn-Tucker-Bellman, von Neumann, Ramsey literature does not quite arrive at attainable distribution solutions. Where it tolerates increasing or decreasing returns to scale, there can be no competitive equilibria. When its matrix equations do obey first-degree-homogeneous functions, the book's stress on Basics or non-Basics is an irrelevancy leading to bizarre novel interpretations of Ricardo.

Old age overtakes us all. Alas, Sraffs's proposed critique of twentieth century political economy we will never be able to know.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Issue of Efficiency and the Role of State in New Institutional Economics: A Critical Perspective

ABSTRACT

This article scrutinises and criticises the notion of efficiency and the role of state in the emergence and evolution of institutions and property rights within the tradition of new institutional economics. Specifically, the attempt is to criticise the efficiency view of the formation of property rights and institutions. It is shown that the efficiency concept cannot provide a sufficient rationale for explaining the origins of private property. Additionally, some recent developments of North's thought are critically scrutinised, showing that his theoretical apparatus could be conceived as a paradise for the eclectic. Further, the role of the state in different versions of the theory of property rights – with a special reference to North's treatment of the notion of state – is, also, critically examined. Although North’s work has virtues compared to the ‘naïve model’ of property rights by recognising and addressing the role of the state and the issue of power in the formation of property rights and institutions, he does not succeed in fully accounting for the existence of institutional arrangements, due to his adherence to an individualist framework.     

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.     

The Facts and the Values of the Lucas Critique

In his influential 1976 paper, ‘Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique,’ Robert E. Lucas, Jr. presented the policy non-invariance argument, also known as the Lucas critique (LC). Drawing on the work of Putnam and Walsh, this paper discusses how the LC, like all works of scientific inquiry, contains values entangled with scientific facts, and argues that the Lucas critique devalued and revalued the highest values in macroeconomic science, a process known as ‘transvaluation.’ Most importantly, the LC worked to operationalize a shift in values that undermined belief in economists’ ability and responsibility to make meaningful interventions in the economy. Employing the language and concepts of continental philosophy, this paper discusses the meaning and effect of the LC on the values embedded in contemporary macroeconomic science.     

Sraffa's system: Equal rate of profits and the notion of center of gravitation

This paper argues that the condition of uniform rate of profits in Sraffa's system is not based on his implicit assumption that the system is at the ‘equilibrium’ or the center of gravitation. It is rather a logical requirement of a reproducing system of basic goods as long as prices are not imposed from outside the system. This condition holds irrespective of supplies being equal to their respective effectual demands. It conjectures that Sraffa could have arrived at this conclusion through his analysis of the Standard system. On the basis of this result, a critique of the received interpretation, led by Garegnani, of Sraffa's prices is developed.     

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.     

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.     

An appraisal of Piero Sraffa's 'The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions'

The paper proposes a new interpretation of Sraffa's 1926 Economic Journal article, ‘The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions’, according to which the latter derives from the same strategy of research which underlies its 1925 Italian precursor, ‘Sulle relazioni fra costo e quantità prodotta’. Sraffa tested the explanatory power of a Marshallian monopolistic partial equilibrium model and concluded that that model is able to treat one source of variable returns (firm-internal economies); but this articulation of Marshall‘s theory does not substantially improve on the trade-off between logical consistency and empirical relevance which afflicted the theory in its whole.     

In defence of Adam Smith's theory of value

Abstract

This paper defends Adam Smith against his critics on his ‘additive’ theory of value as well as his theory of ‘falling rate of profits’. It argues that Adam Smith did not forget the raw materials, and so forth, in his resolution of the price into wages, profits, and rent, and that the constraint binding on the total income was also taken into account by treating rent as the residual. It further argues that there is no fallacy of composition in Smith's explanation for the ‘falling rate of profits’. It was explained on the basis of rising real wages and the farmers’ inability to shift the burden of the rise in wages from profit to rent in the context of a growing economy.     

Personhood and Human Richness: Good and Well-Being in the Capability Approach and Beyond

This paper aims at developing the Capability Approach's (CA) underlying philosophical anthropology and ethics by focusing on the work of its major exponents, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. I first discuss CA's critique of happiness as subjective well-being and defend the idea of ‘flourishing’ which ultimately refers to the Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia. I then focus on the notions of ‘good’ and ‘well-being’ and address the problem of the compatibility between a substantive notion of the Good (expressed through universal moral values) and individual preferences. I thus tackle the issue of adaptive preferences (which is investigated both from a methodological and an ethical perspective) and suggest that the process of adaptation should be thought in the dynamic frame of the constitution of the self. Therefore, in the second half of the paper I investigate the CA's idea of personhood and focus on some important assumptions behind its underlying anthropological model – above all the notion of ‘human richness’. As a result, I first point out the dynamic dimension of personhood, according to which individuals are ‘becoming themselves’ in search of self-realisation and construction of their identities. Second, I highlight its relational dimension, according to which every one is the expression of the anthropological richness and at the same time represents the highest possibility of richness for every other one.     

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.