Piero Sraffa - Free

More documents

Recommendations

Info

140 Piero SraffaSraffa’s work for the critical edition of Ricardo’s Works and Correspondence(Ricardo 1951–5) goes on for more than a quarter of century,interacting with the work on Production of Commodities by Means ofCommodities. Sraffa’s celebrated philological rigour is not pursuedsolely as an end in itself, but is also, and perhaps mainly, the means tohighlight the very foundations of classical political economy. Thus thedebate beginning in the 1970s on the Sraffian reconstruction of the historyof economic thought is also part of the more comprehensive debateon the lines of development of economic science.The attempt to deny that there is a specific classical approach to economics,distinct from the marginalist one, had already got under waywith Alfred Marshall (1961, appendix i). As is well known, Marshallconceived Ricardian analysis as one of the two pillars of the ‘modern’theory of value and distribution: the pillar corresponding to the analysisof production costs, or supply curves, connected to the principle ofdecreasing marginal productivity of land. The ‘modern’ theory, accordingto Marshall, completes the theoretical building with the secondpillar, namely the analysis of demand curves based on the principle ofdecreasing marginal utility.In a subtler way, Jacob Hollander (1904, 1910) tells the story ofRicardo’s gradual retreat from a labour theory of value towards atheory of prices based on costs of production, thus opening the wayto the marginalist developments connected to the principle of decreasingmarginal productivity, considered in turn a development of the‘Ricardian’ theory of differential rent.Marshall’s and Jacob Hollander’s views, here briefly outlined, camein for devastating criticism from Sraffa (1951). His interpretation ofthe classical approach as based on the notion of the surplus is in factcounterposed to their views. Reconstruction of the history of economicthought based on a clear-cut distinction between the classical and themarginalist approach, as proposed by Sraffa, is then developed in a longstream of writings – too numerous for all to be mentioned here. 1In opposition to this broad stream of literature (which embraces a varietyof views, though on the common basis of recognition of the centralrole of the surplus for the classical school and of the distinction betweenthe classical and marginalist approaches), some marginalist historians of1Let us recall, at least, Maurice Dobb’s (1973) synthesis and Krishna Bharadwaj’sresearches focused on the transition stage from the classical to the marginalistapproach (Bharadwaj 1978 and 1989, Chapter 6). For my own contribution andsome further references, cf. Roncaglia (2001).The Sraffa Legacy 141economic thought re-propose the thesis of continuity between the twoapproaches. This thesis has twofold implications: first, to deny the existenceof a specific classical ‘vision’ of the economy; and, secondly, to depictclassical economists once again as the forerunners, rough and approximatein their analyses, of marginalist theories. Thus, in the history of economicthought this debate appears as a central aspect of the more general debateopposing ‘Sraffian’ and ‘marginalist’ economists – an element at least assignificant as the strictly analytical one (i.e. that concerning the theory ofcapital, recalled in Chapter 6). This shows just how relevant issues in thehistory of economic thought are to the contemporary economic debate.In this respect, let us recall Samuel Hollander’s writings on the classicaleconomists, and the replies they received, both as far as a specificaspect is concerned (namely Ricardo’s ‘corn model’) and with regard toa more general proposal of a ‘marginalist’ reading of Ricardo. 2 In differentbut substantially similar ways various authors have embarked on asomewhat subtler venture, namely to re-propose as common to bothclassical and marginalist economists ‘at least’ a view of value and distributionwhere the condition of equality between demand and supply ofcapital and labour determines the equilibrium values for the wage rateand rate of profits; 3 it can be maintained, however, that these interpretationsare once again based on a misreading of Ricardo, introducingelements that are extraneous to his thought. 4The debate, still under way, on the reconstruction of the history of economicthought thus plays a central role and constitutes an integral part ofthat reconstruction of classical political economy that began with Sraffa.8.3 The analytical contributions stemming from SraffaParallel to the use of Sraffian results for the critique of authors and ideascentral to the marginalist tradition, and to the reappraisal of classicalpolitical economy, the publication of Sraffa’s book was followed by2Cf. Hollander (1973a, 1973b, 1975, 1979, 1987, 1989, 1997); for a critique of histhesis on the non-existence of the corn model attributed to Ricardo, cf. Eatwell(1975a) and Garegnani (1982); for a critique of his thesis of a ‘marginalist’Ricardo, cf. Roncaglia (1982), Bharadwaj (1983). Peach (1984, 1993) criticisesboth the defence of the corn model on the side of Eatwell and Garegnani andthe thesis of a ‘marginalist’ Ricardo proposed by Hollander.3Cf. Casarosa (1974, 1978, 1982); Hicks and Hollander (1977); Caravale andTosato (1980).4Cf. Roncaglia (1982: 347–50, 373); Rosselli (1985); and, along partly differentlines, Pasinetti (1982).
142 Piero Sraffavarious pieces of research refining and developing his analysis of therelationships connecting relative prices to income distribution.Leaving aside a long stream of reviews (some of which raise importantissues), 5 the first writings on Sraffa’s book addressed the translation of hisanalysis into mathematical terms. 6 The idea of substituting the assumptionof a set of sectoral profit rates for Sraffa’s assumption of a uniform rateof profits, first suggested by Sylos Labini, was discussed and developed ina long stream of articles. 7 A problem raised by Newman (1962), the possibilityof non-positive prices for non-basic commodities, is tackled in anexchange of letters between Sraffa and Newman himself and in a few otherwritings. 8 The distinction between basic and non-basic commodities iswidely debated, to the extent of considering its applicability to actual problemsof planning. 9 A number of writings focus on the standard commodity,including mathematical specification of its properties, 10 some attempts atgeneralising it 11 and especially its use in solving the problem of transformationof labour values into production prices (cf. earlier, § 5.5).During the 1970s the focus of the work of analytically deepeningSraffa’s analysis shifts from the first to the second and third part ofSraffa’s book. Two mathematical treatments of joint production aregiven by Lippi (1979) and Schefold (1989). 12 The latter then developsspecific aspects, mainly concerning the choice of techniques andtechnical change, in a series of articles now collected in Schefold (1997).5For a survey of the book reviews on Production of Commodities, cf. Bellino (2008);cf. earlier, § 6.2, for Sraffa’s reaction to Harrod’s 1961 review.6Cf. Newman (1962), for the case of simple production; Manara (1968), forthe case of joint production; cf. then the wide treatments of Pasinetti (1975),Abraham-Frois and Berrebi (1976), and, more recently, the careful analysis byKurz and Salvadori (1995).7Let us recall here Parrinello (1982b) and Steedman (1989, Chapter 6). On thisand other issues touched on in this section, cf. the bibliography in Roncaglia(1975), which in its English edition lists the works associated with the variousaspects of the Sraffian analysis published up to 1977. Cf. also the readings editedby Pasinetti (1977), Steedman (1988), Salvadori and Steedman (1990).8Cf. earlier, § 4.8. The exchange of letters between Sraffa and Newman ispublished in Bharadwaj (1989), Chapter 11.9For a concise survey and evaluation of this debate, cf. Roncaglia (1990c),which also provides an assessment of the relevance of Sraffa’s analysis to appliedeconomics.10Among the earliest contributions, cf. Newman (1962), Blackley and Gossling(1967).11Cf. for instance Miyao (1977).12This book includes Schefold’s PhD thesis, ‘Mr Sraffa on joint production’,which circulated in mimeo since 1970.The Sraffa Legacy 143These writings are important not only for their analytical results butalso for the idea that Sraffa’s analysis provides a better basis than traditionaltheory for the study of important practical issues, such as technologicalchange, the energy issue and environmental issues. 13The treatment of fixed capital and rent is developed and discussed ina long stream of articles. 14 The subsystem method, presented by Sraffa ina short appendix to his book (Sraffa 1960: 89), and characterised by thefact that through a notional partition of the economy it obtains a surplusconsisting of a single commodity, also received immediate attention. 15As reconstructed by Pasinetti in terms of vertically integrated sectors, itcame recently to be used as a tool for empirical analyses of productiveinter-relations within the economy. 16 On the choice of techniques, apartfrom the debate raised by Levhari’s 1965 article, recalled earlier (§ 6.4),we may also mention Bharadwaj (1989, Chapter 11), showing that themaximum number of points of ‘switch of techniques’ is equal to thenumber of basic commodities in the system: an important result, whichexplains the apparent rarity of reswitching in numerical examples with asmall number of commodities.A debate on the interpretation and the limits of Sraffa’s analysisstarted in the late 1970s, revolving about the choice of techniques, especiallywith reference to the case of joint production. More specifically,Steedman (1980a), followed – as pointed out by Salvadori himself, andcontrary to what the year of publication indicates – by Salvadori (1979a),showed that the assumption of constant returns to scale is necessaryfor the treatment of the choice of techniques presented in Part Threeof Sraffa (1960); also, in the case of joint production difficulties arise inidentification of the cost minimising technology. 17 These results, and inparticular the latter point, lead Salvadori to suggest a blending of Sraffa’s(1960) and von Neumann’s (1945–6) approaches, and a generalisation ofthe ‘equations approach’ into a ‘weak inequalities approach’. 1813Cf. also the essays collected in Pasinetti (1977), in Salvadori and Steedman(1990), Schefold (2004).14A number of papers on fixed capital are collected in Salvadori (1981). On thetheory of rent let us recall at least Quadrio Curzio (1967, 1977); Montani (1972);Kurz (1990, Chapter 6).15Cf. Harcourt and Massaro (1964), Zaghini (1967), and especially Pasinetti(1973).16Cf. Momigliano and Siniscalco (1982, 1984).17Cf. Salvadori (1979b, 1982), and, independently, Bidard (1984).18Cf. Salvadori (1979b, introduction to 1981, 1982: 295, and in particular 1985);among subsequent contributions, cf. Kurz and Salvadori (1995, Chapter 13).
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 28 and 29: 44 Piero Sraffadistribution of the
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 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 96: 180 IndexIndex 181Marx K., 10, 29,
show all

Piero Sraffa - Free

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?