Christian Gehrke

Sraffa on von Bortkiewicz: Reconstructing the Classical Theory of Value and Distribution

Among Piero Sraffa s unpublished papers is a notebook with extensive excerpts from and critical comments on three contributions of Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz: “Der Kardinalfehler der Bohm-Bawerkschen Zinstheorie” (1906), “Zur Zinstheorie. II. Entgegnung” (1907b), and “Wertrechnung und Preisrechnung im Marxschen System” (1906–7).1 The reading notes and commentaries on Bortkiewicz s three essays were mainly written between January and April 1943, with some additions in December 1945 and June 1955. It was presumably the discussion of Bortkiewicz s contributions in Paul Sweezy s Theory of Capitalist Development (1942) that brought them to Sraffa s attention, who up until then appears to have been unaware of them.2 What will perhaps come as a surprise to

Karl Marx on physiocracy

The paper discusses Marxs views on physiocracy. In his attempt to ‘excavate’ the roots of ‘classical’ political economy, Marx saw that the physiocrats had anticipated the analytical structure of the classical theory of value and distribution from Adam Smith to Ricardo, centred around the concept of surplus product. Marx also discerned, or so he thought, elements of a material-based and a labour-based explanation of value in the physiocrats. Quesneys Ebleau economique is shown to be of importnace not only for Marxs theory of reproduction but also for his determination of the general rate of profit and prices of production.

Say and Ricardo on value and distribution

The paper discusses the differences between the theories of value and distribution of Jean-Baptiste Say and David Ricardo. The attention focuses on fundamental issues in controversy between them. These are Says confounding of ‘value’, ‘riches’ and ‘utility’, the theory of value, the problem of the measure of value, and the distinction between net and gross revenue; and the theory of income distribution, especially the explanation of rents and of profits. Since Say variously expressed his wish to learn from Ricardo and to absorb his doctrine, the aim of the paper is essentially to examine whether he made any progress in this regard. Whenever possible we let the authors speak for themselves.

Keynes and Sraffa's 'Difficulties with J. H. Hollander'

The paper reports on Jacob H. Hollanders cooperation with John Maynard Keynes and Piero Sraffa in the preparation of the latters edition of The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. The report is based on archive material from various sources, including the unpublished papers of Edwin Cannan, Piero Sraffa, Jacob H. Hollander, John Maynard Keynes, and Jacob Viner, and the archive of the Royal Economic Society. The archive material consulted by us shows that, put mildly, Jacob H. Hollander did not promote Sraffas editorial project: he held back material which he had received from Frank Ricardo and did not disclose to Sraffa that he owned several important letters which he had privately purchased. Moreover, Sraffa was refused access to Ricardiana even after he had traced them down in laborious detective work to be in Hollanders possession. Hollanders unwillingness to cooperate with Sraffa considerably delayed the publication of the Ricardo edition.

The Neoclassical Approach to Induced Technical Change: From Hicks to Acemoglu

This survey article provides a critical overview of the development of the neoclassical theory of induced technical change. From Hickss introduction of the concept in his Theory of Wages up to the recent literature the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed models and the contexts in which they have been developed are outlined. It is shown that induced technical change has been invoked to explain various long-run distribution conundrums which could not be explained with standard neoclassical growth theory. The importance of induced technical change for the long-run distribution of income cannot be doubted. Nevertheless, we show that neoclassical models of induced technical change are still unsatisfactory in a number of respects.

RICARDO ON AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS: A NOTE *

This note discusses the numerical examples of land saving and capital saving agricultural improvements Ricardo provided in the chapter on the rent of land in the Principles. Especially his illustration of the second kind of improvements met with fierce criticism. It is argued that Ricardo was not wrong in any substantive sense and that he could only be criticized for having changed the definition of rent as regards the timing of its payment from post to ante factum. Copyright (c) Scottish Economic Society 2003.

Ricardo's discovery of comparative advantage revisited: a critique of Ruffin's account

Abstract In an influential paper, Ruffin has attempted to reconstruct the circumstances of Ricardos discovery of the law of comparative advantage. Ruffins paper has inspired a number of further contributions on the precise nature, logical structure, and analytical significance of Ricardos formulation of the law of comparative advantage. This paper re-examines Ruffins reconstruction, and in particular his interpretation of Ricardos three letters of October 1816 and suggests that it lacks textual and contextual support.

Tozer on machinery

This paper examines John Edward Tozers mathematical treatment of the classical approach to the machinery problem and his discussion of some arithmetical examples that had been presented by Barton, Sismondi, McCulloch and Ricardo. It is shown that Tozer (1) made a genuine contribution to the contemporary debates on the machinery issue, (2) anticipated modern formulations of the problem of the choice of technique, and (3) revealed a puzzling inconsistency in Ricardos argument in the famous chapter ‘On Machinery’.

The Joint Production Method in the Treatment of Fixed Capital: A Comment on Moseley

This paper re-examines P. Sraffas ‘References to the literature’ in Appendix D of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960) on precursors of the joint production method in the treatment of fixed capital. It is shown that Moseleys view, according to which Sraffas attribution of the joint production method to Torrens, Ricardo, Malthus and Marx is ‘misleading at best and totally wrong at worst’ (F. Moseley, 2009, ‘Sraffas interpretation of Marxs treatment of fixed capital’, Review of Political Economy, 21, p. 99), is difficult to sustain. Moseleys argument is based on the absurd premise that Sraffas attribution of the joint production method to the four classical authors mentioned would only be justified if it could be shown that they had used the joint production method in the same way and for the same purpose as Sraffa did.

Sraffa’s Constructive and Interpretive Work, and Marx

ABSTRACT This article provides a summary account of Piero Sraffa’s constructive and interpretive work on the classical approach to the theory of value and distribution and its relationship with Marx’s contributions. It is shown that in the early phase of his constructive work Sraffa developed his equation systems by adopting a ‘physical real cost’ approach and a strictly objectivist point of view, and completely eschewed Marx’s labour-based approach and the related Marxian concepts. Only at a later stage did he explore systematically the relationship between his own modern re-formulation of the surplus approach to the theory of value and distribution and Marx’s contribution. He considered Marx’s most important analytical contribution to the further development of the surplus approach to consist of the re-integration of circular production relations, which allowed him to see the existence of a maximum rate of profits and its role in an analysis of accumulation and technical change.