Piero Sraffa - Free

150 Piero SraffaThe dominant role attributed to the ‘analytical core’, which Marx shareswith classical economists and Sraffa, influences the line of enquiry followedin the reconstruction of political economy. The ‘core’ is taken as thefoundation on which to develop the analysis in different directions, correspondingto the elements considered as exogenous data in Sraffa’s book(income distribution, production and employment levels, technology).Furthermore, the analyses of the relations internal to the core andof those external to it are said to constitute ‘distinct logical stages’(Garegnani 1984: 297): the nature of the enquiry is substantiallydifferent in the two cases. Garegnani (1990a: 124–5) characterises thisdifference in a clear-cut way. He points to a ‘distinction between twofields of analysis: a field where general quantitative relations of sufficientlydefinite form can be postulated’, namely the ‘core’; ‘and anotherfield where relations in the economy are so complex and variableaccording to circumstances, as to allow not for general quantitative relationsof sufficiently definite form’, namely the rest of economic theory:‘The relations pertaining to this second field had accordingly to bestudied in their multiplicity and diversity according to circumstances’.Departing from what appear to be the implications of Pasinetti’scontributions, Garegnani and his followers seem thus to interpret theanalytical core common to Sraffa and classical economists not as a setof formal relations to be extended in more general models but rather as aset of relations of causes and effects that should constitute prior foundationsfor the analyses of other aspects of economic life. More precisely,central relevance is attributed to the causal chain running from the wagerate, determined by socio-historical conditions (or alternatively by aprofit rate determined by conventional and institutional factors explainingthe interest rate), to relative prices and the second distributive variable,on the basis of a given technology. This core of causal relations continuesto constitute the necessary reference point also when the focus shifts toother parts of political economy, precisely because these relations are theonly ones that can be considered as ‘general quantitative relations’.Another idea repeatedly pursued by Garegnani (for instance inGaregnani 1990b) is the ‘gravitation of market prices towards naturalprices’, already discussed earlier in § 3.3. In fact, the metaphor ofgravitation, both imperfect and suggestive as all metaphors are, seemsto be used by Garegnani essentially to stress the relative ‘stability’ and‘persistence’ over historical time of those elements (techniques in use,distribution) which are employed to explain ‘natural’ prices; along thisroad the point of speaking of ‘long period positions’ is reached. In thisrespect the idea of the gravitation of market prices towards naturalThe Sraffa Legacy 151prices is invoked in order to explain the central role attributed to therelations connecting economic variables within the ‘core’ of economicanalysis, whose aim is to interpret the working of basic forces acting inreality. It is precisely this element – the central role of the ‘core’ – whichcharacterises Garegnani’s theoretical views, both in his interpretation ofthe connection between Sraffa and classical economists and Marx, andin his view of the line of research to be followed in the reconstructionof political economy initiated by Sraffa.8.6 The ‘Smithian’ reconstruction: Sylos LabiniA new departure in interpretation of the central aspects of classicalpolitical economy was developed in a number of writings by PaoloSylos Labini. 27 This line of research is characterised by the central roleattributed to market forms, which are relatively overlooked by classicaleconomists, in their interaction with the division of labour and theprocess of accumulation. This approach implies bringing to the centre ofanalysis a certain view of the process of capitalistic development whichdraws more on Smith than on Ricardo or Marx: a view focused on thedeepening of the division of labour (or, more specifically, of technologicalchange). Changes in the division of labour drive changes over time inmarket forms and in the pace of accumulation. Developments in incomedistribution are then made to depend on these elements, together withaspects concerning public policy and the political–institutional setting.In this way, while the notion of surplus retains a central role in economicanalysis, the functional relations connecting natural prices to income distributionlose their role as the central pillar of economic theorising.More generally, Smith’s vision of a process of development characterisedby both positive and negative elements, though fundamentallybeneficial, is re-proposed in a somewhat different form by Sylos Labini.His ‘Smithian’ vision is developed as an alternative, if not in opposition,to the traditional Marxian view of a progressive deterioration ofcapitalism (with the law of increasing misery, proletarisation, tendencyto a falling rate of profits) up to the inevitable breakdown and theunavoidable revolutionary outcome. 2827Cf. Sylos Labini (1954, 1974, 1976, 1983, 1984, 2004).28This counterposition is particularly clear in Sylos Labini’s writings on socialclasses (1974) and on underdevelopment (1983); for a direct critique of theMarxian ‘vision’, cf. Sylos Labini (1994: 3–24). On Sylos Labini’s liberal–socialistviews, cf. Roncaglia (2008).