Against the current: Sraffa's unpublished manuscripts and the history of economic thought *

The paper throws some new light on Sraffa's contribution, using material from his yet unpublished papers.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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Sraffa: the theoretical world of the ‘old classical economists’ *

Sraffa's mature work is seen here as a re-discovery and resumption of the ‘submerged and forgotten’ approach of the ‘old classical economists from Adam Smith to Ricardo’. Wages determined by broad economic and social forces entail there product prices determined independently of demand and supply functions. Some main questions raised for the modern economists by this radical reorientation of economic theory are then considered in order to conclude that it is aginst that background that Sraffa's mature work should be set with its three main contributions, of a rediscovery of the approach, of a complete and transparent solution of the problems of price determination it raises, and of its application to the critique of neoclassical theory. Among several developments originating from Sraffa's seminal work, two are singled out for mention: (i) the possibility of deficiencies of aggregate demand in the long period no less than in the short one; this follows naturally from the abandonment of the neoclassical theory of distribution, of which the role of the interset rate in equilibrating savings and investment is a corollary; (ii) the question of the distribution of the surplus between wages and profits in a modern economy where wages are no longer confined to subsistence.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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’.     

Method and analysis in Piero Sraffa's 1925 critique of Marshallian economics

This paper provides an analysis of the logical structure and analytical content of Piero Sraffa's 1925 Italian paper, ‘Sulle relazioni fra costo e quantità prodotta’. It shows that Sraffa's criticism of the supply side of Marshall's theory of value in a competitive partial equilibrium model involves analytical and methodological issues. Endorsing an agressive methodology Sraffa logically reconstructs Marshall's model on variable returns to determine its empirical domain. He demonstrates that the latter encompasses only the empirically irrelevant cases of specific factor industries and specific external economies industries and that it cannot be generalized to non-specific factor industries and to non-specific external economies industries.     

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.     

On the Limits to the Long-Period Method in Classical Economics: A note

On a first reading of Theory of Production, Kurz & Salvadori (1995) appear to confine the empirical domain of the long-period models of the classical theory of value and distribution to stationary economies with non-constant returns to scale and to growing economies with constant returns to scale. Such a reading is shown to be untenable since it merges the two levels of exploring the extension of a model and of testing a theoretical hypothesis. Conversely, the way Kurz & Salvadori tackle the problems of price dynamics and returns to scale in growing economies is shown to be compatible with what appears to be Sraffa's (implicit) strategy of research.     

Joan Robinson as a teacher

Sraffa's construct, the standard commodity, responds to Ricardo's search for an ‘invariable’ measure of value, since it is a measurement unit invariant to changes in distribution. But Sraffa suggests that there is no ‘counterpart,’ no analogous search or needed construct, for the ‘problem’ of ‘difference’ as distinct from change (‘why two commodities produced by the same quantities of labour are not of the same exchangeable value’). Difference in this sense is crucial to Marx, who distinguishes value and surplus-value from capitalist price and profit in part in order to theorize differences as systematic value transfers. In that effort, Marx repeatedly poses commodities and capitals as ‘aliquot parts’ of the whole, so that profit is a redistributed share of aggregate surplus-value. This paper shows that, when Marx's aliquot part imagery is formalized, the resulting hypothetical system represents a meaningful ‘counterpart,’ a construct with a function in Marx's analysis of difference comparable to that of Sraffa's standard commodity in analyzing distributional change. A Marxian ‘standard system’ posing each commodity as an aliquot part of the social capital (a) defines the needed labor-time unit of social account by homogenizing heterogeneous concrete labors as socially average (‘abstract’) labor while simultaneously (b) allowing the derivation of exchange-value (e.g., capitalist production price) on that scale via summation of directly and indirectly embodied labor. Indeed, Marx's approach to production prices as resulting from an inter-industry redistribution of aggregate surplus-value is shown to be algebraically identical to the calculation of labor-embodied under ‘aliquot part’ production conditions.     

The 'Sussex School' and the history of economic thought: British Intellectual History, 1750-1950

After a brief survey of the Japanese literature on Sraffa, the author explains how his own theory of the microfoundations of Keynesian macro-economics was influenced by Sraff's view of competitive markets. This view can be interpreted that firms perceive kinked demand curves. It is emphasized that Azariadis's theory of implicit contracts can explain unemployment only if we take Sraffa's not Walras's, view of competitive market.     

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.     

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.