Piero Sraffa - Free

154 Piero Sraffabetween symbols in the human mind is conducted in ‘a different analyticalarea’ from analysis of the interaction of neurons in the humanbrain (Hofstadter 1979). Then, obviously, the two analyses may provecompatible with some common interpretation of human intelligencein general.With recourse to the notion of different analytical areas we canaddress, within the ‘Smithian’ approach, the problem of the relationshipbetween what Garegnani calls ‘the core’ of classical political economyand ‘the rest of economic theory’. When research in different analyticalareas is considered useful in dealing with different issues, the notion ofa ‘core’ of economic analysis loses meaning, and the problem of formalconsistency with the core cannot even be raised, nor can it constitutea ‘logically prior’ stage with respect to the ‘logically subsequent’ stagesconsisting in the treatment of other issues. A conceptual, not a formal,consistency is required between the different theories developed to interpretdifferent aspects of economic reality, if such theories are to representparts of a common corpus of doctrines. The relevance attributed to thiskind of consistency 32 lies in the fact that it constitutes the main defenceagainst possible abuses of the idea of ‘different analytical areas’.It is only here that we find reasons for attributing a particularlyimportant role to the set of analytical relations usually included inthe field of the theory of value. It is within this field, in fact, that thedifferences between different conceptions of the way of functioningof the economy most clearly appear, and it is here that they can beexpressed with the greatest precision. Clearly, from this point of viewSraffa’s (1960) analytical contribution continues to play a central rolealso within what we term here the ‘Smithian’ reconstruction of classicalpolitical economy.8.7 A preliminary evaluation of the three lines of enquiryThe argument expounded in the preceding pages does not implybasic contradictions between the three lines of enquiry – ‘Ricardian’,‘Marxian’ and ‘Smithian’ – proposed for the reconstruction of classicalpolitical economy as initiated by Sraffa. However, the differences are, ofcourse, there. This section deals with some difficulties arising when the‘Ricardian’ and ‘Marxian’ lines of enquiry are interpreted as counterposedto the ‘Smithian’ approach.32This fact at least partly explains the importance attributed to the debates concerningthe history of economic thought: cf. Roncaglia (1996).The Sraffa Legacy 155Let us begin with the ‘Ricardian’ analysis developed in particular byPasinetti. As we saw above (§ 8.4), it is, at least at an initial, fundamentalstage, a normative analysis aiming at determining the conditions of continuousfull employment (or, in general, of a predetermined employmentdynamics), in the presence of exogenous changes in labourforces, technology, consumers’ tastes. This implies a counterpositionto the traditional marginalist view according to which market economiesautomatically tend to full employment. Vice versa, the conditionsof economic growth under continuous full employment analysed byPasinetti are not automatically realised by market forces; they may onlyconstitute targets for policy interventions.However, once the aim of analysis is thus specified, some problemsarise. First, along with the assumption of full employment, importantelements are determined from outside the model, and in particularthe parameters determining the pace of technical change. Secondly,even if we accept the point of view of the ‘full employment planner’,we still lack the second point of reference necessary to any policyaction, namely analysis of the tendencies of actual economic systems.According to Pasinetti, this kind of analysis represents a subsequentstage, given the bare indication in his work, logically subsequent to theanalysis of what he calls the ‘natural’ properties of an economy, namelythe conditions of growth under persistent full employment.It may be noted here that the term ‘natural’ as utilised by Pasinettihas a somewhat different meaning from the use common among classicalpolitical economists or in other modern reconstructions of classicaltheory. ‘Natural’ in the sense of ‘corresponding to the nature of things’implies that those referred to as natural values constitute the best possiblecharacterisation of reality, when contingent and accidental elementsdo not disturb the scene. In our interpretation of Sraffa’s 1960analysis, natural prices – or prices of production – are those theoreticalvariables which derive from the very structure of our theory, namelyfrom the choice of those which our theory considers the main forcesin action with respect to the issue under consideration. Since persistentfull employment can be seen as an optimal path for the economy, themeaning Pasinetti attributes to the term ‘natural’ retains a flavour ofmuch older traditions such as ‘natural law’ ( jus naturalis), where thenatural law is not automatically realised by human beings but is ratherthe aim to be pursued, and so a basic reference point in the interpretationof human behaviour.Concentrating analysis on the optimal growth path, however, mayitself tend to obscure some aspects that are decisive for an understanding