Piero Sraffa - Free

144 Piero SraffaThis debate is still open, and is crucial for the interpretation of Sraffa’sanalytical contribution. Here we will simply recall that Sraffa himselfstresses (Sraffa 1960: v) that the point made about the absence of anyassumption on returns to scale, strictly speaking, only holds for the Firstand Second Part of his book. There is thus a difference with respect toPart Three, which deals with the problem of the choice of techniques.Such a difference suggests that the analysis of the choice of techniquesin Part Three of Sraffa’s book, while essential for the critique of traditionalmarginalist theories of value and distribution, is not to be interpretedas providing the foundations for analysis of how technical choiceand technical change take place in the real world.8.4 The ‘Ricardian’ reconstruction: PasinettiWhen attempts at reconstructing classical political economy go beyondthe limits of Sraffa’s explicit analysis, and set out to tackle the issuesconnected with the development of the economy over time, no singlepath of research can be univocally deduced from Sraffa’s analyticalresults. Indeed, a multiplicity of lines of enquiry are actively exploredand confronted. In this and the following sections we discuss the distinguishingcharacteristics of three main lines of research along whichcontributions have been made to the reconstruction of the Classicalapproach started by Sraffa.An initial, wide-ranging development of Sraffa’s analysis is proposedin particular by Pasinetti in a number of writings, culminating in his1981 volume on Structural Change and Economic Growth, subtitled ATheoretical Essay on the Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations, and morerecently in the 2007 volume on Keynes and the Cambridge Keynesians: A‘Revolution in Economics’ to be Accomplished.Notwithstanding the reference to Adam Smith’s magnum opus inthe subtitle, Pasinetti’s 1981 main reference is to Ricardian analysis.On methodological grounds, Pasinetti follows the principles of logicaldeduction, leaving a purely illustrative role for historical references, inanalogy with Ricardo and in direct opposition to Smith’s predilectionfor historical generalisations as opposed to analysis through models.Furthermore, Ricardo’s ‘model’ is the subject of Pasinetti’s 1965 growthmodel, which also incorporates Pasinetti’s 1962 formulation of thepost-Keynesian theory of distribution, connecting income distributionbetween wages and profits to the level of investments, once the savingpropensities of workers and capitalists and the ‘natural’ growth rateare given. Subsequently, the development of the theory of verticallyThe Sraffa Legacy 145integrated sectors (Pasinetti 1973) constitutes a decisive analytical stepin moving on from the Sraffian analysis of the relationship betweenrelative prices and income distribution to the analysis of economicgrowth. Lectures on the Theories of Production (Pasinetti 1977a) can, then,also be considered as a reinterpretation of the history of economicthought, and especially its recent history (Sraffa, Leontief and vonNeumann). This set of writings contributes to providing the basis for aspecific view of the nature and role of economic science: a view whichcannot be considered as opposed to that implicit in Sraffa’s writings, butwhich can neither be identified with, nor logically deduced from it.A number of economists – particularly among the Italians – supportPasinetti in developing this line of enquiry. Let us recall at least thereappraisal of the history of economic thought proposed by QuadrioCurzio and Scazzieri (1984), based on the counterposition betweenthe classical and the marginalist approaches as stemming from thedistinction between the ‘basic notion of reproducibility’ and the ‘basicnotion of scarcity’. 19 Let us also recall the studies on the Sraffian analysisof fixed capital considered as a premise for the analysis of growth(Baldone 1974, Varri 1974), as well as Marzi–Varri (1977), employingthe wage–profit frontier for the analysis of technical change (althoughwith recourse to excessively simplificatory assumptions in their appliedanalysis).As already noted, Pasinetti (1981) represents a synthesis of this lineof research, and so serves as our main reference in discussing the natureand limits of this line of enquiry. 20Pasinetti’s aim is ‘to build a unifying theory behind all the new contributionsto economics’ (1981: 19): Kalecki and Keynes, the theory ofthe firm, Leontief and Sraffa, business cycle theories, the Harrod–Domarmodel and post-Keynesian distribution theories. Such a unifying theoryhas its main pillar ‘not in the caprice and scarcity of Nature, but in theprogress and ingenuity of Man’ (1981: 23).Proceeding on this basis, Pasinetti aims to develop ‘a theory whichremains neutral with respect to the institutional organisation of society’,19On the limits of an interpretation of the counterposition of the marginalistand classical approaches in terms of scarcity and reproducibility, cf. Roncaglia(1975: 5–6, 124–6).20For further developments, cf. then Pasinetti (1988, 1990, 1993 and 2007, BookThree). In a direction at least partly analogous to it, but focusing on the roleof scarce resources and hence of rent in the analysis of economic dynamics inthe presence of technological change, cf. Quadrio Curzio (1967, 1975, and withPellizzari, 1996).