Piero Sraffa - Free

160 Piero SraffaHowever, this constitutes an unnecessary constraint for the investigationof issues such as technical change, or the link connecting divisionof labour, market forms and income distribution, which are better dealtwith as separate, but not subordinate, areas of analysis.Another interpretation of Sraffa’s analysis (developed in Roncaglia1975, and re-proposed in the present book) is based on a ‘weaker’notion of natural prices, considered as the theoretical outcome of theaction of certain forces ‘isolated in vacuo’, namely those which influenceexchange ratios in a systematic way. Such an interpretation proves morefruitful in overcoming the barrier which arises in other interpretations,between the ‘general quantitative relations’ and ‘the rest of economictheory’. As suggested above, different ‘analytical pieces’ may coexistwithin a common process of theoretical reconstruction, once the possibilityof ‘different analytical areas’ is recognised for the investigationof different aspects of the functioning of economic systems, and if weavoid attributing too rigid a meaning to the central role assigned withinthe theoretical debate to the problem of value when distinguishingbetween different economic ‘visions’.In the case of the ‘Marxian’ approach, and especially in the case ofthe ‘Ricardian’ one, the critical remarks illustrated in the present sectionconcern certain aspects of the lines of research proposed for thereconstruction of economic theory, and not the general vision underlyingsuch a reconstruction, namely the central idea of a very close linkbetween Sraffa’s analysis and classical political economy, and the objectiveof a reconstruction of classical political economy as an alternativeto the marginalist approach.Let us summarise the results of our reasoning. We saw, in the precedingsections, that there are different lines of enquiry which, stemmingmore or less directly from Sraffa’s contributions, aim at a reconstructionof classical political economy. However, this does not imply that suchlines of enquiry are mutually exclusive. In particular, following the‘Smithian’ line of enquiry discussed above, and accepting the possiblecoexistence of different analytical areas, we may find useful elementsfor the reconstruction of classical political economy in each of the otherlines of enquiry discussed above.Thus, for instance, Pasinetti’s analysis can be interpreted in termsof analysis of a well-defined issue (the conditions for growth undercontinuous full employment, and their implications), rather than asa ‘general model’ of the functioning of an economy. It should also berecognised that the notion of ‘natural values’ has a different meaningin the context of Pasinetti’s analysis and of the classical tradition.The Sraffa Legacy 161Similarly, various aspects of Garegnani’s contributions are useful forthe reconstruction of political economy, provided that his thesis of thesupremacy of the relations analysed within the ‘core’ over those externalto it is abandoned. At the same time, the ‘Smithian’ line of enquiryitself cannot but gain in clarity and analytical robustness by payinggreater attention to its links with the classical surplus approach andwith Sraffa’s analytical contributions.Here we cannot attempt to sketch out the setting which could emergefrom a critical synthesis of the different lines of enquiry stemming fromSraffa’s contribution. It is clear, in any case, that while the reconstructionof classical political economy can be said to be well under way,much work still remains to be done. We should recall, moreover, thateconomists analyse a continuously changing reality, requiring a continuousadaptation of the theoretical apparatus itself. It is precisely for thisreason that economic research today, in particular within the revival ofthe classical approach, far from going through a crisis, is a lively andfascinating enterprise.