44 <strong>Piero</strong> <strong>Sraffa</strong>distribution of the products and makes it possible for the process tobe repeated’.If the economic system under consideration is able to produce a surplus,‘the distribution of the surplus must be determined through the samemechanism and at the same time as are the prices of commodities’. (<strong>Sraffa</strong>1960: 6). If the wage can exceed the subsistence level, the relative pricesand one of the two distributive variables – wage or rate of profits – arejointly determined, once the technology and the other distributive variableare known. The higher the wage, the lower the rate of profits will be. 5Let us recall here <strong>Sraffa</strong>’s equations for this case (<strong>Sraffa</strong> 1960: 11):(A a p a B a p b … K a p k ) (1 r) (L a w) Ap a(A b p a B b p b … K b p k ) (1 r) (L b w) Bp b. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(A k p a B k p b … K k p k ) (1 r) (L k w) Kp kwhere A a , B a , … , K a ; A b , B b , … , K b ; … ; A k , B k , … , K k and L a , L b , … ,L k are the quantities of the various commodities and of labour requiredfor the production of quantities A, B, … , K of the same k commodities;p a , p b , … , p k are the prices of the k commodities; w is the wage rate and r isthe rate of profits. We thus have k equations for a system with k commodities,and k 2 unknowns (k prices, the wage rate and the rate of profits).Let us choose a commodity as the standard of measure (so that weremain with k – 1 relative prices as unknowns). Let us then consideras exogenously determined either the rate of profits or the wage rate(which is a real wage rate, being expressed in terms of the commoditychosen as the standard of measure). The k equations are now sufficientfor determining the k remaining unknowns.Let us go on to assume that the system produces a surplus: namely,for each commodity the total quantity required as means of productionin the various sectors is less or equal to the quantity produced, withthe strict inequality holding for at least one commodity. It can then beproved that the system has economically meaningful (i.e. positive) solutionsfor the unknowns. It can also be shown that the rate of profits isa decreasing function of the wage rate, varying from a maximum correspondingto a zero wage rate (the case in which all the surplus accrues toprofits) down to zero when the wage rate is maximum (and the wholesurplus accrues to wages).5Cf. Pasinetti 1975, Chapter 5, for a broader mathematical treatment of thissimple model.Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities 45When there is a surplus, the possibility opens up to produce ‘luxury’commodities, that is, commodities which are neither means of productionnor part of necessary (subsistence) consumption. On the oppositeside, we have ‘basic’ commodities, which are directly or indirectlyrequired as means of production in all production processes. We shalldiscuss this distinction in greater detail in Chapter 4. <strong>Sraffa</strong> then brieflyillustrates the distinction between prices of production and marketprices, followed by the distinction between necessary and surpluswages, before presenting the general solution for the model in the casewhere each industry has a single product (thus leaving aside by assumptionthe case of joint production, to be considered in the second partof his book).<strong>Sraffa</strong> (1960: 12–13) goes on to analyse changes in relative prices connectedto changes in income distribution. As the classical economistsand Marx already knew, such changes are determined by ‘the inequalityof the proportions in which labour and means of production areemployed in the various industries’. Indeed, ‘it is impossible for pricesto remain unchanged when there is inequality of “proportions”’.Two chapters (<strong>Sraffa</strong> 1960: 18–33) are then devoted to constructing aparticular analytic tool, namely the ‘standard commodity’, and to provingthe uniqueness of the underlying ‘standard system’. Thanks to thisconstruct, as we shall see later (Chapter 5), <strong>Sraffa</strong> is able to tackle theRicardian problem of an invariable measure of value and to illustrateimportant characteristics of his own analysis.Part 1 of the book closes with a chapter (<strong>Sraffa</strong> 1960: 34–40) on the‘Reduction to dated quantities of labour’. This analysis is relevant to anumber of issues, including the Smithian idea that the natural price canbe resolved into wages, profits and rents (see § 3.3) and the Austriantheory of capital, developed by Böhm-Bawerk and adopted by Hayek,whereby capital is measured in terms of an ‘average period of production’(discussed later, § 6.2).In Part 2 of the book <strong>Sraffa</strong>’s analysis of production prices goes onto consider the case of joint products and, within this category, fixedcapital goods and scarce or non-reproducible means of production suchas land. 6 The book closes with Part 3, consisting of a single chapter onthe choice between economically alternative methods of production in6On the problems which arise with transition from single product systems tojoint production – problems concerning the positivity of prices, the definition ofbasics, the monotonicity of the wage–profit curve, the choice of the methods ofproduction – there is an ample literature, referred to later (§ 8.3).
46 <strong>Piero</strong> <strong>Sraffa</strong>relation to variations in the rate of profits (which, as we shall see laterin § 6.3, is of relevance for the critique of marginalist theories) and withfour appendices including the ‘References to the literature’, where <strong>Sraffa</strong>explicitly associates himself with the classical economists.3.3 <strong>Sraffa</strong>’s analysis and the classical approach: Critiqueof ‘cost of production’ theories, distinction betweenmarket and natural prices<strong>Sraffa</strong> himself points out in the Preface to his book that the point of viewhe adopts is similar to that of the classical economists, such as Smith andRicardo. In section 7 of his book, <strong>Sraffa</strong> (1960: 9) discusses the significanceto be given to the prices that are the object of his analysis. Therehe affirms that ‘such classical terms as “necessary price”, “natural price”or “price of production” would meet the case’ of his own theory.<strong>Sraffa</strong> gives his own conception of the proper use of such classicalterms in the form of negation, that is in terms of what they do notmean. In this way he highlights the principal errors that should beavoided in a proper analysis of the determination of relative prices.First, <strong>Sraffa</strong> explains that the term ‘cost of production’ is too one-sided:the idea that the prices of products are determined by costs, that is, bythe quantities and prices of the means of production directly requiredin their production, involves circular reasoning, since the means of productionare a subset of the commodities which constitute the product.In general (with the exception of non-basic commodities) there is abi-directional relationship between the prices of commodities and theircosts of production: we need to know prices to determine productioncosts, and these in turn need to be considered in price determination.Thus, in order to determine the price of a basic commodity it is necessaryto consider the entire system of technical relationships among thevarious productive sectors: not only the direct or indirect use of othercommodities in the production of the commodity in question, but alsothe use made of that particular commodity in the production of allother commodities and itself must be taken into direct consideration.Such specification of the concept of prices of production impliescritical reference to the so-called ‘adding-up-of-components’ theories,according to which the price of a commodity is given by the sum ofthe elements that enter into its cost of production. 7 This type of theory7These have been christened ‘Adding-up of components theories’ by MauriceDobb (1973: 46, 122), following <strong>Sraffa</strong>’s exposition in <strong>Sraffa</strong> (1951).Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities 47came in for severe criticism, by Ricardo, to begin with, and later byMarx, who attributed it to Adam Smith. In this context <strong>Sraffa</strong> alsorecalls ‘the “real costs” of Marshall and the “quantity of capital” whichis implied in the marginal productivity theory’. 8According to the theory attributed to Smith, ‘“as soon as stock hasaccumulated in the hands of particular persons”, and “as soon as theland of any country has all become private property”, the price of commoditiesis arrived at by a process of adding up the wages, profit andrent’. 9 This implies that the price can be entirely reduced to wages,profits and rent, which Smith seems here to be implicitly consideringas independent of each other. In fact his contention, that a rise inwages would produce a rise in prices, may be rationalised by attributinghim with this implicit assumption. 10 Ricardo, in an unbroken line thatextends from his Essay on Profits to the Principles, goes to great lengthsto demonstrate that a rise in real wages produces a reduction in profits,while causing some prices to rise and others to fall, when considered interms of the particular commodity chosen as the standard of measure. 11Pursuing his criticism of Smith’s position to the extreme, Ricardo (1817:62–3) goes so far as to show that, by adopting a very particular standardof measure (a commodity produced only by labour and with the shortestpossible period of production), all prices fall when wages rise – theexact opposite of the inference drawn from Smith, or rather from theposition attributed to him.8<strong>Sraffa</strong> (1960: 9). Dobb (1973: 122) points out that it is possible to identify, asSchumpeter had already done, a ‘Smith-Mill-Marshall line’ in this regard. In myopinion, the role of Smith and J. S. Mill in this line of descent should be treatedwith the greatest caution, since their representation of the economy in themost important aspects corresponds to that of other classical economists suchas Ricardo, so that the difference between them and Marshall is wide indeed.Cf. Roncaglia (2001).9<strong>Sraffa</strong> (1951: xxxv). The passages from the Wealth of Nations quoted by <strong>Sraffa</strong>are in Smith (1776: 65, 67).10‘Adam Smith, and all the writers who have followed him, have, without oneexception that I know of, maintained that a rise in the price of labour would beuniformly followed by a rise in the price of all commodities’. (Ricardo 1817: 46).The position attributed to Smith is undermined by the assumption, common toall the classical economists, that wages and prices are measured in terms of somecommodity (usually gold) and not in inconvertible paper money.11Initially, before the 1815 Essay on profits, Ricardo shares Smith’s position. See,for example, the letter to Malthus dated 25 July 1814 in Ricardo (1951–5, vol.6: 114). <strong>Sraffa</strong> elaborates on the role of this position in the development ofRicardo’s thinking in <strong>Sraffa</strong> (1951: xxxiii ff).
- Page 1 and 2: Piero SraffaAlessandro Roncaglia
- Page 3 and 4: ContentsList of FiguresIntroduction
- Page 5 and 6: Introduction ixWith this degree of
- Page 7 and 8: 2 Piero Sraffa(1874-1961), professo
- Page 9 and 10: 6 Piero Sraffarevaluation of the li
- Page 11 and 12: 10 Piero Sraffaadministration of th
- Page 13 and 14: 14 Piero Sraffa1.4 Imperfect compet
- Page 15: 18 Piero SraffaIn many fields of ec
- Page 18 and 19: 24 Piero SraffaAn Italian in Cambri
- Page 20 and 21: 28 Piero Sraffanot something fixed,
- Page 22 and 23: 32 Piero Sraffamonetary factors on
- Page 24 and 25: 36 Piero Sraffapartnered in his lab
- Page 26 and 27: 40 Piero SraffaActually, there was
- Page 30 and 31: 48 Piero SraffaLet us recall at thi
- Page 32 and 33: 52 Piero Sraffathe other hand, the
- Page 34 and 35: 56 Piero Sraffaof production. 24 Bu
- Page 36 and 37: 4Basic and Non-Basic Products4.1 Ba
- Page 38 and 39: 64 Piero SraffaA line of argument s
- Page 40 and 41: 68 Piero Sraffathe system stemming
- Page 42 and 43: 72 Piero Sraffaplan that would yiel
- Page 44 and 45: 76 Piero Sraffaproduced less quanti
- Page 46 and 47: 80 Piero Sraffaterms of labour comm
- Page 48 and 49: 84 Piero Sraffaof value is, and mus
- Page 50 and 51: 88 Piero Sraffabeing invariant to c
- Page 52 and 53: 92 Piero Sraffa(variable plus const
- Page 54 and 55: 96 Piero Sraffaconsumption goods),
- Page 56 and 57: 100 Piero Sraffadirectly required f
- Page 58 and 59: 104 Piero Sraffaproduction’ (iden
- Page 60 and 61: 108 Piero SraffaCritique of the Mar
- Page 62 and 63: 112 Piero SraffaThe growing remoten
- Page 64 and 65: 116 Piero Sraffareturns: Sraffa’s
- Page 66 and 67: 120 Piero SraffaFurthermore, the cl
- Page 68 and 69: 124 Piero SraffaIn this way the pro
- Page 70 and 71: 128 Piero SraffaSraffa raised again
- Page 72 and 73: 132 Piero Sraffaconnected, but can
- Page 74 and 75: 136 Piero SraffaThe bridge between
- Page 76 and 77: 140 Piero SraffaSraffa’s work for
- Page 78 and 79:
144 Piero SraffaThis debate is stil
- Page 80 and 81:
148 Piero SraffaObviously the ‘Ma
- Page 82 and 83:
152 Piero SraffaIn comparison to th
- Page 84 and 85:
156 Piero Sraffaof the path actuall
- Page 86 and 87:
160 Piero SraffaHowever, this const
- Page 88 and 89:
164 ReferencesReferences 165——
- Page 90 and 91:
168 ReferencesReferences 169Levhari
- Page 92 and 93:
172 ReferencesReferences 173——
- Page 94 and 95:
176 ReferencesReferences 177——
- Page 96:
180 IndexIndex 181Marx K., 10, 29,