Luigi Pasinetti (1930-2023)

Pasinetti, Garegnani and the president of Italy in 2010

Last week, in my senior seminar on the history of economic thought, I made the kids read a paper by Pasinetti on "Progress in Economic Science", which was published in a book edited by Boehm, Gehrke, Kurz and Sturn. It's a short defense of pluralism in economics on the basis of the co-existence of Kuhnian paradigms, with a relatively optimistic view of the possibility of progress, in a discipline in which, as he noted, the object of analysis is changing continually, the ideas of the researchers might affect the functioning of the object of study, and value judgments cannot be avoided, in part because they affect everyday material conditions. As he said: "It is enough to think of the devaluation of a currency, or of the movements of wages and salaries, to realize how deeply these phenomena affect everybody’s pocket."

Sadly Pasinetti has died yesterday. He was perhaps the last great name of the Anglo-Italian Cambridge School, that tried to put the works of the classical authors and Marx and the Keynesian Revolution together, and intimately associated with the work of Piero Sraffa. I remember reading a paper on how the school could be divided in a more Marxian strand (with Pierangelo Garegnani as the main author) and a Ricardian one, around Pasinetti. This also had political implications with Pasinetti representing the center right Christian Democrats, and Garegnani on the left, linked to the Communist Party. I once told that to Garegnani, who dismissed the idea of Sraffian schools.*

Pasinetti will be remembered for his work on the Cambridge distribution models, the famous Kaldor-Pasinetti model, the participation in the capital debates, and his work on a classical model of structural growth. Personally, his book on the theory of production (Lectures on the Theory of Production) and his discussion and critique of the Maastricht fiscal limits remain the two of his contributions that influenced me the most.

I should note that this comes after a series of deaths in the profession that have significantly affected the heterodox community, and me personally. Vicky Chick, with whom I was supposed to work for my PhD, and Jim Crotty, two of the more creative thinkers within Post Keynesian economics have passed. Also, on a personal note, Nilüfer Çagatay, my colleague in Utah, and Barkley Rosser, the co-editor of the New Palgrave passed away this month. The heterodox community is in mourning.

* The other would be the Smithian one, with Sylos-Labini as the main leader, and a Socialist bent in politics.

Beyond vulgar heterodox economics: a note on the legacy of Pierangelo Garegnani (1930-2011)

My paper, in Italian, which was a modified version of a talk last year, has been published in Moneta e Credito, and is available for download here.

On Garegnani's contributions to economics

My initial comments at the seminar on the legacy of Pierangelo Garegnani's contributions to economics organized by the Italian Post Keynesian Network. The full seminar here.

Garegnani: Ten Years After

This event organized by the Italian Post Keynesian Network. I wrote about Garegnani's contributions when he passed away here in the blog. We will discuss some of the issues he raised, but also the new directions of Sraffian economics.

 

Why do we need a theory of value?

The theory of value and distribution is at the heart of economics. To be clear, when I say that it is at the center, it means that discussions of almost any topic in economics, in one way or another, depend on a certain theoretical position about the theory of value and distribution. However, most economists have no clue about it, about the centrality of value. Not only they don't understand the original and now infamous labor theory of value (LTV), that dominated between Petty and Ricardo (and Adam Smith too, even though that tends to surprise and puzzle most economists),* but also they misunderstand the dominant marginalist paradigm. Some economists actually think that you don't need a theory of value at all, and some don't even understand that they use a conventional (some vulgar form of supply and demand) theory of value. Hence, the reason of this post is to try to help clarify some very basic issues related to the necessity of a theory of value for proper theorizing in economics.

In a sense, this topic was discussed here before, in my post on Sraffa, Marx and the LTV. But it is worth revisiting, and thinking in broader terms, beyond the LTV, to understand why a theory of relative prices is needed in general, to understand almost everything in economics.

Let me start with the authors of the surplus approach. In fact, a bit earlier with the economists that would eventually be known as Mercantilists (if you can talk about a school). If we are allowed to generalize and simplify, the latter believed that the wealth of nations depended essentially on maintaining trade surpluses, and accumulating precious metals. Profits were essentially the result of buying cheap and selling dear, or profits upon alienation, which indicates that, for Mercantilists, profits were generated in the exchange process.

Classical political economy authors, starting with William Petty, emphasize the determination of profits in the process of production, as a residual of output, once the conditions for the reproduction of the productive system were satisfied. So profits are not the result of selling high and buying low, something that could result from the mere fluctuation of market prices, but from the ability to produce beyond what was needed for the simple material reproduction of society. Note that to obtain profits, part of the residual, the surplus over and beyond reproduction requirements, one needs to know the prices of the means of production. That is, one needs to be able to account for the normal prices of the goods that went into the production of all commodities. And these prices would include a normal profit. Again, not the extra gain that might occur from a high market price. So the normal rate of profit is needed to determine prices, and prices are needed to determine the normal rate of profit. This was well understood by both Ricardo and Marx.

Value (the relative prices of commodities) and distribution (the normal rate of profit) are intertwined. Smith knew that the simple LTV (amounts of labor incorporated) was not correct other than in very rudimentary economic systems, with essentially no produced means of production. His solution was to adopt the idea of labor commanded (more on that on my post on Sraffa, and the one on the standard commodity). Ricardo solved this problem, in his corn essay, by assuming that the surplus and the means of production advanced to produce output where all in physical quantities of corn, hence profits could be determined independently from relative prices, as a physical quantity. And Marx adopted the simple labor theory of value in volume one of Capital. Both believed, for slightly different reasons, that their main arguments would hold even if the LTV was not precisely correct.

I am not concerned with the problems with the LVT in Ricardo and Marx (worth noticing that the mathematical solution was not known in their time, and was essentially developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) or Sraffa's solution. It is worth insisting that the LTV does have an analytical solution that is unique, and stable (see my post on the standard commodity for the former, which suggests a Smithian, i.e. labor commanded, version of the LTV is perfectly fine).** That's good, btw. It suggests that the classical political economy notion that there are prices that guarantee the reproduction, and, beyond the the expansion (or accumulation), of the economic system do exist.

Here I want to emphasize the importance of the LTV for the analysis of other aspects of the economy. Ricardo saw the problems of the Smithian adding up theory. That's the notion that prices were composed by the sum of natural wages, profits and rent and that prices would go up if one of its components went up.  In order to determine the rate of profit properly, Ricardo noted the explanation of value was essential. The rate of profit was central because in his view the processes of accumulation depended on the rate of profit. Hence, proper discussion of accumulation and growth depends on a proper theory of value and distribution. Btw, all classical authors assumed that real wages were exogenously determined by institutional and historical circumstances (so there was a role for history and institutions in their theory; also, for accumulation that was seen as too complex to be theorized in the same level of abstraction that value). But even if one is less keen than Ricardo on the role of profits in accumulation, it is undeniable that distribution affects accumulation, and, hence, a proper theory of value and distribution is needed.

Note also, that other things that depend on relative prices are crucially affected by the theory of value and distribution. Classical authors assumed that the process of competition, by which they meant only free entry and not the size or the number of firms in an industry, would lead to a uniform rate of profit. In that sense, the forces of competition were central in forging the structure of production, and, hence, the determination of technological change or to understand the patterns of trade specialization, which cannot be understood without the determination of relative prices. In fact, perhaps the most famous and the most controversial issues coming out of Ricardian economics dealt with international trade and the effects of technical change (the so-called machinery question), and are directly connected to the theory of value.

Even the most crucial macroeconomic problem, the question of output determination (and employment, for a given technique) is affected by the theory of value. Note that classical political economists assumed output as given for the determination of the surplus. And Ricardo accepted Say's Law as a way of determining output and employment (not Marx, btw, so it's NOT a requirement of the surplus approach). But as much as for accumulation understanding of distribution is central for the determination of the level of output, as it is explicit in the Kaleckian effective demand model. the classical long term prices are compatible with levels of output that do not guarantee full employment. And the parametric role of distribution in affecting the size of the multiplier is crucial for output and employment determination. So unemployment is possible in the long run, as a regularity of market economies.

In other words, for a coherent theory of output, accumulation, international trade, technological change and more (taxation, etc.) you need a theory of value and distribution. That is also the case in the mainstream. Marginalism developed in the last quarter of the 19th century, both as a result of the lack of analytical solution in that period for the problems of the LTV and as a reaction to radical revival of the theory (Marxism). The important distinction is that while classical political economy authors dealt only with objective factors, and considered demand as given when determined value and distribution, marginalism incorporated subjective preferences as central for the explanation of long term normal prices, and prices and quantities were determined simultaneously.

Beyond the problems with the marginalist solution for the existence of long term prices (see this on the capital debates) and their switch to the intertemporal approach, which basically only deals with short term prices, their theory is also central for almost everything in economics. In a sense, given that in marginalist analysis distribution is determined by supply and demand, and by the relative scarcity of factors of production, the theory of value and distribution is even more central for other parts of their theory than in the surplus approach. Here the theory of distribution does not affect indirectly the level of output and the process of accumulation. Here the level of employment and, for a given technology, output determination is the same as the theory of distribution. Real wages and the level of employment are determined in the labor market simultaneously. Everything derives from that.

Before getting to the reason why the theory of value and distribution, central for everything, is often ignored, let me note briefly the possibility of a third alternative to value and distribution, beyond the surplus approach and marginalism. That would be the markup theories of pricing. Note that theories of markup pricing essentially describe how firms determine prices. Most of these theories were developed as a result of the imperfect competition literature sparked by Sraffa's famous (1926) critique of Marshallian price theory (see an old post on that here).

First, as it would be known for the readers of this blog (at least the ones that have been reading for a long while), markup pricing is actually dealing with a different set of issues, and Franklin Serrano suggested here that they are different than the classical political economy normal long term prices (the Marxist prices of production or Sraffa's prices), and that Fred Lee and Marc Lavoie were right about that. He argued that some Sraffians (I won't name names), and I would add probably Fred too, thought that Sraffian prices were compatible with the full cost pricing tradition, and I could have included myself in this group.*** Note that what I mean by that is simply that the behavior of firms must be compatible in the real world with the logic of gravitation in classical analysis. In other words, if prices of production imply a normal profit over the full cost for a given technique, then firms somehow must be trying to do that.

But it is clear that the full cost pricing of a particular firm might not be the long run equilibrium price around which market prices gravitate, with free mobility, that is, with competition in the classical sense. In a way, the same circularity suggested above reapers, costs depend on prices (and that involves the profit related to the markup), and prices depend on costs. The firm's individual prices might not be the prices that are required for the reproduction of the economy as a whole. In that sense, markup theories must be grounded on some surplus approach understanding of value and distribution, and they are essentially theories about market prices, meaning short run behavior. In that sense, they run into the same problem than the intertemporal marginalist models, the Arrow-Debreu type, that became more popular after the capital debates, and that led to what Garegnani famously referred to as the change in the notion of equilibrium (that is the abandonment by the mainstream of the notion of long run equilibrium). Some heterodox groups see this as a positive development, but again it implies that they cannot say anything clear about distribution and relative prices, and that has implications for almost any other theory.

I might add here, which is more concerning for some heterodox groups, is that many of these theories are also compatible with marginalist interpretations of the theory of value and distribution. Many imperfect competition theories just suggest simple inverse relations between markups and the price elasticity of demand. This again fall into the type of situation I discussed recently regarding Karl Polanyi, of well-meaning critics of the marginalist mainstream, using marginalist or neoclassical concepts w/o knowing they are doing it (if it's conscious acceptance of the mainstream model, then it's something different).

One last thing in this regard, while markup theories must be grounded on some theory of value and distribution, and my take is that the surplus approach is where it would make sense, the opposite is not true. There is no need for a theory of the firm, of individual behavior, to understand long term prices. Classical political economists certainly discussed behavior, but that essentially entailed some notion related to class, to general social norms, not about what is going on in someone's brain. Even Smith that was certainly concerned with the issue of the role of self-interest in determining the equilibrium outcomes in the market, cannot be assumed to be a precursor of the rational maximizing agents of the mainstream, or of methodological individualism. The same could be said of utilitarian views and Ricardo, who was, to some degree, close to many utilitarians including Bentham. Here too, many heterodox economists think that an alternative theory of behavior is central for economics, and that is why many see behavioral economics as somewhat heterodox.

Finally, getting, even if briefly, to the point of why most economists remain oblivious to the relevance of value and distribution. I would suggest that this is a recent phenomenon. It is the result of what I have discussed here before, the return of vulgar economics (for example, here or here), and that the mainstream has abandoned the long run, and provides only a theory of short run prices. But at the same time the mainstream must revert to the old model in order to promote economic policy. Note that only in that model you can guarantee that markets provide efficient allocation of resources (w/o imperfections), and the price system signals the direction of adjustment. It is often missed by the heterodox groups that resist old classical political economy (often for incorrectly assuming that it is a precursor of marginalism) that their theory of value and their long term prices provide something completely different, an understanding of the conditions for the reproduction of society. That notion, btw, is alive and well in other social sciences (see here or here). Not in economics.

* It survived in the fringes and it was rediscovered by Marx and then much later Sraffa, who actually provided a coherent solution to some of its logical limitations. But after Ricardo, the LTV was never dominant again.

** On the gravitation of market prices towards normal prices see the work by Bellino and Serrano here.

*** My fondness for the subject in part derived from having worked for Wynne Godley at the Levy for two years, who was a disciple of P. S. W. Andrews one of the key authors of the Oxford Economists' Research Group (OERG) behind full cost pricing theories.

The New School for Social Research at 100: A view from the Econ. Dept.

From a late 1990s catalogue; Lance Taylor (center), and also in no particular order

and from what I can remember (Ellen Houston, Adalmir Marquetti, myself (with goaty

on the left side), Margaret Duncan, Josh Bivens and Carlos Bastos (Orozco Room)

The New School for Social Research was founded 100 years ago by a group of academics dissatisfied with the direction of American high education. Economics was central to the early history of the New School, and my brief, very incomplete, and certainly idiosyncratic historical account emphasizes the Economics Department of what used to be called the Graduate Faculty.

Thorstein Veblen, one of the founders, had written his famous Higher Learning in America, which in a sense is the original critique of the corporate university. The idea was to put learning at the center, and avoid the conventional trappings of universities, with no degrees provided to students. The foundations of the critical perspectives provided at the New School came from institutionalists (like Veblen), pragmatists, represented by another prominent founder, namely John Dewey, and revisionism in history, with Charles Beard as its main voice at the new institution. Many came from Columbia University and were dissatisfied with both institutions of higher education and the direction the country had taken, in particular with World War I. These were mostly anti-war, progressive social scientists.

Perhaps the key person at the inception of the New School was Alvin Johnson, a somewhat difficult to classify economist (Gonçalo Fonseca at the HET website suggests that he might be seen as Austrian), that has been almost completely forgotten. Johnson was the editor of the massive Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, later substituted by the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (last edition under Sandy Darity, and I have two entries on Export Promotion and James Mill), which put him in contact with several economists around the world, many in Germany.

A group of scholars that he met as the editor of the encyclopedia was the basis for the so-called University in Exile, which eventually was the basis for the Graduate Faculty, the division that now still is called the New School for Social Research (while the whole is just The New School, if I do understand the naming changes at my alma mater). The most important and cohesive group of economists that arrived at the New School in 1933, and the following years, escaping persecution in Nazi Germany, were the ones related to the Kiel School, including Gerhard Colm (on Colm I co-authored this paper with Luca Fiorito), Adolph Lowe, Jacob Marschak, and Hans Neisser. In that group, Lowe, the mentor to Robert Heilbroner, was to be the more consequential for the New School.

The New School was not orthodox in its economic teaching, but the 1930s were a period of flux in the profession at any rate. The Keynesian Revolution was in course, and Keynes was acquainted with Johnson and the New School, as it can be seen in the letter he gave to H. G. Bab (see below; click to amplify). In that sense, while it is true that the place was somewhat unorthodox, given its origins and the historical period in question, that should not be exaggerated. Note that Marschak went on to be the head of the Cowles Commission, and a leading mainstream economist. While at the New School he supervised Franco Modigliani's doctoral thesis, which was the basis for his famous neoclassical synthesis paper of an ISLM model with rigid wages and for his Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.

The New School, more enjoyable and compatible people than at Columbia, for sure (click to enlarge)

I say this because there is a tendency to think of the New School as being always heterodox, and taking that term to have more or less a contemporary meaning (for what I mean about that go here; for a great and more in depth discussion see this post by Ingrid Kvangraven and Carolina Alves). Many others taught at the New School in this period, perhaps, worth mentioning is the case of Abba Lerner, the main author of the functional finance school (something that is at the core of Modern Money Theory, but is more restrictive and specific than MMT).

The Kiel School was what one could term eclectic. They certainly had roots on elements of the German Historical School, and readings of marginalist and non-marginalist authors, including Marxists. Gonçalo puts Tugan-Baranovsky as one of the influences on the Kiel School. Tugan, a "semi-critic of Marx" according to Schumpeter, argued that a disproportion between the investment and consumption goods sectors would lead to recurrent industrial crises, and that notion of structural imbalances was central for Kiel authors. Leontief was also connected to the Kiel School.

While many in the Kiel School were open to and used marginalist concepts, as in the case of institutionalists, not all were neoclassical, and Lowe's views arguably were the most clearly connected to the works of the old classical political economists. Ed Nell, in the appendix to Lowe's book The Path of Economic Growth compares it with Leontief, Von Neumann, and Sraffa, as being classically inspired. One can think of Ed's Transformational Growth research program as building on that tradition.

But it would be a stretch to suggest that Bob Heilbroner, Lowe's main disciple at the New School, and the next key person in the history of the Economics Department at the Graduate Faculty, was a follower of classical political economy. A cursory reading of his classic, The Worldly Philosophers, shows that his reading of Smith is perfectly compatible modern mainstream readings, which imply that Smith was a precursor of supply and demand theories. The chapter on Smith discusses the law of markets, but the labor theory of value only makes an appearance in the chapter on Marx, and to suggest that it was a deviation from Smith and Ricardo. The degree to which Heilbroner conflates classical and marginalist or neoclassical theory is clear in that he argues that the Walrasian circular-flow in Schumpeter's theory resembles Ricardo's stationary state. And in the discussion of Schumpeter's notion of profit he suggests, regarding the labor theory of value, that "everyone knew to be wrong and therefore did not have to be reckoned with."*

Further, his views on economic growth, as evidenced in his book on the economics history of the Unites States, were essentially that growth was supply-side constrained and dependent on technological innovation, in ways that seem to be closer to his Harvard undergraduate teacher, Joseph Schumpeter, than classical political economy authors (Smith had arguably a demand driven view of growth, while Ricardo most certainly didn't, and Marx is open to many different views; I'll keep that to another post). I emphasize this to show that even if he was unorthodox in many ways Bob was not necessarily what we would term heterodox in the modern sense of the word (even if taken loosely as not being neoclassical).** In my view, no clear heterodox bias existed up to the 1960s, in a department that had basically been under the shadow of three economists, Johnson, Lowe and Heilbroner. Note that this somewhat eclectic persistence of different approaches was more or less common in many departments at that time.

But the Johnson-Lowe-Heilbroner nexus provided the basis for the changes that shaped the department with the arrival of Ed Nell in the late 1960s. Ed had worked with Hicks at Oxford, and he was from early on critical of methodological individualism, something that is clear from his critique of the concept of the rational economic man. More importantly he was concerned with growth, and that led to a discussion of the theories of value and distribution (perhaps influenced by Hicks' Capital and Growth, which remains an important book), and was influenced by Sraffa's revival of classical political economy. It was after Ed arrived that a series of new hires, among them Stephen Hymer, Anwar Shaikh, and David Gordon, changed the department. Note that the late 1960s and early 1970s too is the period in which the economics profession segregates the heterodox groups, makes it harder for radicals to get tenure in conventional and prestigious departments (e.g. Sam Bowles at Harvard), and publishing requires the foundation of new journals (e.g Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, and the Cambridge Journal of Economics).

In my view, it is no coincidence that this is also when the change in the notion of equilibrium, as discussed by Garegnani, takes place (some discussion of that here). The point is that the capital debates had shown the limits of marginalist (neoclassical) economics, and the profession embraced what I have referred to as vulgar economics after that. The hiring of heterodox economists, critical of the mainstream in this period, and the sociology of academia, locked in heterodox hegemony at the Econ. Dept. of the Graduate Faculty.

Many other heterodox economists taught at the New School's Econ. Dept. from that point onwards. I might note Paul Sweezy, which if I'm not wrong was instrumental in making Bob Pollin choose the New School for his PhD, was among the teachers in the 1970s. And also many Sraffians like Piero Garegnani, John Eatwell, taught on a recurring basis, while many were visitors for shorter periods. Again, somewhat idiosyncratically, in my view it is the arrival of Lance Taylor in 1993 and a few years later of Duncan Foley that consolidated the persistence of the heterodoxy, and the type of heterodox department (with a mix of structural Keynesianism and Marxism), that the New School has today.

Perhaps, it is important to emphasize how limited this story is. There is a missing story about the role of David Gordon, who was also a key player in the department for many decades, and of Anwar Shaikh, that I always saw as somewhat of an influential outsider (maybe I'm wrong), even by the New School standards. And also the many other wonderful and creative heterodox economists that passed through the New School over the years. There is a question about the gender imbalances at the New School, and within heterodoxy itself, that I do not address. I'll explicitly avoid saying any additional names, since in this way I cannot be accused of forgetting someone (I'm leaving out a ton, including the many alumni that went on to remarkable careers). Hopefully this provides a window on how the New School became heterodox and why it remains so.

* It should be noted that Bob's book was published in 1953, a few years before the labor theory of value was rehabilitated by Sraffa's Production of Commodities.

** On a personal note, I remember talking to Bob on an interval of a conference organized by Ed Nell on functional finance, in 1997, I think, in which he argued that the Maastricht limits (3 per cent for deficits, and 60 per cent for debt) were reasonable measures to constrain the size of government. He was a liberal in an older sense of the word, perhaps.

Garegnani on Sraffa and Marx, with an intro by Petri

The Review of Political Economy has done a great service to those interested in political economy, and in particular those concerned with the revival of the surplus approach. It has published the manuscript of Pierangelo Garegnani's unpublished paper.

From Fabio Petri's introduction:

In the last year of his life, Pierangelo Garegnani (1930–2011) worked on revising a paper on Marx’s labour theory of value drafted 30 years before, which had remained unpublished. This revised paper is what is reproduced below. 

The paper had been read at a 1980 Conference on Marx in Bielefeld, Germany. It was a new version, in English, of the paper ‘La teoria del valore: Marx e la tradizione marxista’, published, together with an early Italian version of Garegnani (1984) as well as some other material, in Garegnani’s Marx e gli economisti classici (1981: pp. 55–90); the project had originated in a series of articles published in the Italian weekly Rinascita in 1978 and 1979. In the opening page of an essay on ‘The Labour Theory of Value: ‘Detour’ or Technical Advance?’, Garegnani (1991: pp. 97 and 113, endnote 4) announced the present work as forthcoming, but in fact the paper did not go to print. In September 2010 Garegnani resumed working on the paper, to add to it a further Section IX concerning more recent discussions on Marx and the labour theory of value. He intended to co-author this additional Section with me, and it is from the ensuing collaboration that I have obtained the typescript of the Bielefeld paper, dated 1981, titled ‘The Labour Theory of Value in Marx and in the Marxist Tradition.’ On why this 1981 paper was still unpublished 10 years later, what went wrong with its publication in 1991, and why then the paper remained dormant for nearly 20 more years, Garegnani supplied little information. About these questions one can only wait for when an examination of his papers and correspondence – a vast task yet to be commenced – will possibly allow for a well-founded historical reconstruction of his choices. 

Unfortunately Garegnani passed away in October 2011, before a draft of the additional Section IX could be achieved (see Petri [2015] for further details). But in that last year he also worked on revising the Bielefeld paper, that is the first eight sections of the intended new paper. The result of the revision is presented here. Although not a final version ratified by the author, it is a fully autonomous paper, and quite definitive: the draft contains no incomplete sentences or notes by Garegnani indicating that certain points might need further work. Relative to the 1981 version, it contains additional observations and stylistic improvements, but no changes in the basic arguments. 

The aim and contents of the paper were summarized at some length by Garegnani himself when announcing it in the opening page of the 1991 essay. In that summary, which can now be read as an introduction to the arguments contained in the paper here submitted to the public, Garegnani (1991: p. 97) stresses that the paper is devoted to further confirming the thesis, advanced in Garegnani (1984), that the role of the labour theory of value in the classical approach and in Marx was the ‘technical’ one of providing a ‘measurement independent of distribution, of product, wages and means of production,’ thus allowing a determination of the rate of profits as the ratio of net social product to capital advances, surmounting, in the only – albeit imperfect – way concretely available at the time, the (apparent) vicious circle of a rate of profits dependent on relative prices in turn dependent on the rate of profits. With particular regard to Marx, Garegnani explains, the confirmation is achieved by showing that the traditional interpretations that attribute other roles to the labour theory of value ‘have little foundation in Marx’s own work. This applies in particular to the readings often made of some characteristic concepts of Marx, like his distinction between ‘inner’ and ‘apparent’ relations of the bourgeois system, the distinction between ‘abstract’ and ‘concrete’ labour, the representation of the wage as ‘value of labour power’, or the sense in which Marx refers to labour exploitation – a sense which, as he explicitly states, has little if anything to do with the labour theory of value.’ These interpretations ‘have indeed made it difficult to comprehend a large part of Marx’s theoretical work’. No attempt at diplomacy here! The published 1991 essay is then presented as an appendix to that still unpublished paper, defending the latter’s arguments against the views on Marx’s labour theory of value expressed by Samuelson, Baumol, Myrdal, Meek, Morishima, and Sen. 

There remains to indicate why publishing this paper today is deemed important. The main reason is that Garegnani’s understanding of the role of the labour theory of value in Marx (and of the correct reading of those ‘characteristic concepts of Marx’) appears to be scarcely known outside Italy [1], a fact that has helped the frequent placement of his overall approach in the ranks of an allegedly anti-Marx ‘Sraffian school’. This reaction is hardly surprising in the light of the substantial diversity of Garegnani’s theses from the long-dominant ones. So dominant was the tradition attributing to the labour theory of value indispensable roles other than the one indicated by Garegnani – for example, the role of proving labour exploitation – that it is not difficult to understand that the spontaneous reaction of scholars steeped in the traditional interpretation may have been one of skepticism, if not of hostility, toward a view which, by claiming that nothing is lost by replacing the labour theory of value with Sraffa’s equations, seemed to reject fundamental elements of Marx’s assessment of the nature of the capital–labour relation. The absence of a detailed exposition in English of the arguments Garegnani supplies in support of his views has made it difficult to give those arguments the attentive consideration warranted by the recognized depth of thought of the author. The publication of the present paper aims at making such adequate consideration possible [2]. 

The criticism, in the last sections of the paper, of two Italian scholars absent from recent debates does not seem to be outdated either, because views similar to those they expressed are still present today. The near identification one finds in Lucio Colletti’s (1924–2001) writings of the concepts of fetishism, alienation, and abstract labour continues the long (and still alive) tradition stressing the ‘qualitative’ roles of Marx’s labour theory of value, and has been influential outside Italy too (see, for example, Foley 1982: p. 46, fn. 5). The argument put forward by Claudio Napoleoni (1924–1988), that outside the labour theory of value one cannot view profits as the fruit of exploitation [3], is representative of a widely shared view that helps us to understand the reluctance of many Marxists to replace the labour theory of value with the correct analysis of prices as provided by Sraffa. 

Independently of how convincing it will be found, this paper questions the idea of a so-called ‘Sraffian school’ antithetical to Marx. Leaving aside the analytical and even philological legitimacy of referring to Sraffa’s work and its later developments as any new particular ‘school’ distinct from the modern reappraisal of the classical approach to value and distribution, the paper shows that no such counterposition is applicable to a scholar highly representative of that line of thought, in whose view Marx’s overall approach actually turns out to be strenghtened, rather than challenged, by the correct determination of rate of profits and prices achieved with Sraffa.

Notes

[1] The publication in 1985 of a French version of the Bielefeld paper (Garegnani 1985), also containing a short appendix criticizing Rowthorn (1974), does not seem to have been widely noticed: I have found it cited in only one (unpublished) paper concerned with Marx’s theory of value, Chattopadhyay (2000).

[2] And at supplying at last the needed background to the 1991 essay.

[3] Napoleoni’s argument is available in English in Napoleoni (1991). Garegnani does not cite this article, presumably because of the little time he had to work on the last three Sections, which have remained almost unchanged from the 1981 version.

Most of these issues were briefly tackled in this old post.  Read paper by Garegnani here.

H/T to Franklin Serrano and Sergio Cesaratto for bringing the paper to my attention.

The Passage of Time, Capital, and Investment in Traditional and in Recent Neoclassical Value Theory

New paper by Fabio Petri published in Œconomia. From the abstract:

With the shift from traditional analyses where capital is a single value factor of variable ‘form’ to the neo-Walrasian versions, general equilibrium theory has encountered new problems pointed out by P. Garegnani (1976, 1990): impermanence problem, price-change problem, substitutability problem radically question the right to consider neo-Walrasian equilibria as approximating the actual path of real economies. The paper briefly summarizes these problems and then concentrates on a fourth problem, the savings-investment problem, arguing that neo-Walrasian general equilibrium theory assumes that investment is adjusted to full-employment savings but cannot justify this assumption. The attempt to justify it in intertemporal general equilibrium through the tâtonnement is subjected to a new criticism: it is shown that the tâtonnement assumes Says’ Law all along the adjustments, and determines investment in a way that would crumble if it were not assumed that consumers determine their demands for consumption goods on the basis of an assumption of full employment incomes, which is not justified outside equilibrium, and was not assumed in traditional analyses. This reinforces the absence of reasons to view neo-Walrasian equilibrium paths as sufficiently approaching actual paths. It is concluded that behind the reference to intertemporal equilibrium as the microfoundation of macro analyses there is a continuing faith in traditional neoclassical time-consuming adjustment mechanisms, based on the old and untenable conception of capital that the shift to neo-Walrasian equilibria intended to do without.

Full paper available here.

Centro Sraffa Lectures

Franklin Serrano will deliver the Pierangelo Garegnani Lecture 2015 titled "Notes on Garegnani, Kalecki and effective demand." Paper not yet available. Also, Christian Gehrke will deliver
three lectures in the Phd programme in Economics of Roma Tre University. For those not in Rome, the papers on which the lectures are based are available here.

Garegnani on Long Run Effective Demand

The famous Italian report, or parts of it, written in the early 1960s, which preceded the English papers published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics (CJE) in the late 1970s (here and here; subscription required), has been translated and published by the Review of Political Economy (ROPE) and is available here.

Some excerpts that are particularly relevant given recent debates on growth within heterodox schools. Garegnani says:

"it follows that the effect of increases in real wages on the absorption of unemployment will depend in large measure on how they affect final demand. 

It is necessary then to distinguish between the two components of final demand: consumption and exports."

 On the effects of real wage changes on consumption he argues that:

"As regards consumption, increases in real wages lead to a rise in consumption and hence, provided the economy has accumulation capacity that is not fully utilized, to an expansion of the productive system and to an increase in employment. Given the level of productivity in the economy, the increase in real wages will in fact cause a redistribution of income in favour of a class that consumes a major portion of its income, and with that an increase in the first component of final demand... 

a steady and continuous rise in real wages along with the consequent steady and continuous increase in consumption can serve to instil in entrepreneurs a confidence in the continuous expansion of the market for their products, inducing them to undertake investments and increases in employment and output that will in turn help to raise final demand."

Then the question is what is the effect of real wage changes on exports:

"But how far can this increase in consumption due to the rise in real wages continue before its effect on final demand is offset by a reduction in the other element of final demand, net exports? ...  

The discussion of the effects of a change in real wages on exports is much more complicated than the discussion of how real wages affect consumption. Exports do not in fact depend in a straightforward way on the movement of wages in the same way that consumption does. Variations in net exports depend upon the money prices of goods, and unless additional assumptions are introduced, no necessary connection exists between the movement of real wages and the behaviour of prices. If real wages were to rise via a fall in prices with constant money wages, the situation with regard to exports would be improved. If real wages were to increase via an increase in money wages with prices remaining constant, the exports situation would be neither improved nor harmed. If however the increase in real wages were to lead to increases in the level of prices, exports would be harmed in a regime of fixed exchange rates."

And that is before bringing the question of productivity into the analysis.

From a more historical point of view, the significance of this report is that it was written right after the publication of Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, and of Garegnani's own doctoral dissertation, published as Il Capitale nelle teorie della distribuzione. This should make clear that part of the Sraffian project was the revival of the classical theory of distribution, concomitantly with the extension of the Keynesian Principle of Effective Demand to the long run.

History versus equilibrium: a false dichotomy

The title comes from Joan Robinson's famous essay. However, the motivation is to clarify some comments on a previous post on what Keynes meant by unemployment equilibrium (sent to me, but not published). There is a relatively widespread notion among some post-Keynesians that neoclassical economics assumes always a single unique equilibrium, and that Keynes, or at least his closer followers like Robinson, believed in multiple equilibria. The idea is that post-Keynesians believe in an unstable, uncertain capitalist system in which full employment is only one possibility.

Beyond what one may think about equilibrium, there is no basis in the history of economic ideas for that view. Keynes was a Marshallian, and as such did believe in the notion of a single stable long run equilibrium of the system. The radical element in Keynes analysis is that such equilibrium might be suboptimal, that is, one in which resources are not fully utilized. He is very clear when he says in the General Theory that:

"it is an outstanding characteristic of the economic system in which we live that, whilst it is subject to severe fluctuations in respect of output and employment, it is not violently unstable. Indeed it seems capable of remaining in a chronic condition of sub-normal activity for a considerable period without any marked tendency either towards recovery or towards complete collapse. Moreover, the evidence indicates that full, or even approximately full, employment is of rare and short-lived occurrence. Fluctuations may start briskly but seem to wear themselves out before they have proceeded to great extremes, and an intermediate situation which is neither desperate nor satisfactory is our normal lot."

So what Keynes said is pretty clear, fluctuations around a normal equilibrium. Unemployment is the normal position, the long run equilibrium around which the system fluctuates. Like the old classical political economists (e.g. Smith, Ricardo, and Marx) and the marginalists of his time (e.g. Pigou, and Marshall) Keynes believed in a single stable long run equilibrium position. Note that nothing in Keynes analysis implies that the long run equilibrium is ever attained, or that it cannot be affected by the process by which it is approached, and, hence that it would be path-dependent [the supermultiplier story with a Kaldor-Verdoorn process is path dependent and is still a long run equilibrium position].

The problems associated to the negative impact of uncertainty, and failed expectations, and the institutions and conventions that are relevant in a certain historical context to minimize the effects of instability are all part of the normal operation of the economy for Keynes, and not, like in neoclassical models, superimposed on an essentially stable system. In other words, Keynes equilibrium theory is not a-historical, and hence does not require the addition of more realistic (historical?) elements to provide explanation of say why the system is stuck below full employment equilibrium.

For example, lack of demand (caused by stagnant wages and not enough fiscal stimulus) means that the US economy will the near future fluctuate around levels of unemployment that are above the previous normal levels. In the graph below (source) that is visible in a trend that was lower in the 1950s and 1960s, and goes up in the 1970s and 1980s, only to go down (as a result of a series of bubbles) in the 1990s, and, as I suggested, is likely to go up again. This trend represents the normal position to which Keynes alluded in the passage cited above. Unemployment fluctuates, but is not violently unstable (sometimes it might be; asks the Greeks). In the neoclassical model, in contrast, without imperfections, be that price rigidities or lack of information or any other kind, the system would move to full employment. That's why they often resort to change what the meaning of full employment is (the natural rate goes up; nudge, nudge; wink wink).

However, the interesting thing is that while the old neoclassical authors shared the classical political economists and Keynes notion of a stable long run equilibrium (optimal for the neoclassical, and not so for Keynes and the classical authors), they have departed from that view after the capital debates. In fact, it is in the Walrasian world of Arrow-Debreu's intertemporal equilibrium, that the notion of multiple equilibria becomes relevant (for the reasons why the mainstream changed their views on equilibrium go here; Garegnani classic paper titled "On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent Work on Value" is the source of this idea). But in that world, anything could happen, it is wildly unstable and there no forces bringing the economy back to its normal position. Certainly not what Keynes thought, and also not an accurate description of the graph above.

More importantly, the very idea of long run equilibrium is central to our ability to theorize about the functioning of real, historically and institutionally specific economies. It is the fact that there are persistent forces, with regularities, which allows to say something meaningful about the functioning of the economy. If uncertainty rendered economic calculation impossible, then even Keynes' theory about how effective (autonomous) demand determines income, would be irrelevant, and in that case post-Keynesians would have (notice I said would have, since I don't think this is the right way to describe post-Keynesian economics) more in common with the modern neoclassical economists that have embraced multiple equilibria and all sorts of imperfections.

The deep causes of the Great Divergence: or why China fell behind

In the last post, I suggested that Kenneth Chase's explanation of why China invented, but did not pursue the development of gunpowder and guns to its ultimate consequences, could be seen as the very deep cause of the so-called Big Divergence, i.e. of the rise to dominance by Western Europe. Chase explains the lack of interest in the development of firearms in China as the result of geographical conditions and how they affected warfare. He argues that two types of warfare developed after the invention of firearms.

"Where there were technologically advanced agrarianate societies that were not threatened by steppe or desert nomads, we find the combination of firearms and pikemen, with an emphasis upon infantry (western Europe, Japan). Where there were technologically advanced agrarianate societies that were threatened by steppe or desert nomads, we find the combination of firearms and wagons, with an emphasis upon cavalry (eastern Europe, the Middle East, India, north China)."

From a geographical point of view Chase divides Eurasia in three regions. The Arid Zone, which includes those areas that supported pastoral nomads, the Inner Zone including the areas that were directly threatened by pastoral nomads, principally eastern Europe, the Middle East, India, and China, and the Outer Zone that was not directly threatened by pastoral nomads, principally Western Europe and Japan, as shown in his map below.

In a sense, this is a more sophisticated geographical argument than the one put forward by Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel, since it is capable of explaining why Western Europe and not China (or India, or the Ottomans) dominated the world, while Diamond (in a book that uses old political economy arguments, in particular the notion of surplus, something typical of many historians as argued here before) can only explain why Europeans conquered the people outside Eurasia (that had less luck in the choice of animals and plants to domesticate, and less chance to spread them in an East-West axis with similar climate) really. Note that Cipolla long ago had noted that the main advantage of Westerners when they arrived in the East (Vasco da Gama in 1498) was basically military.

The only thing missing in most of these non-economists discussions of the causes of Western European dominance is the role of demand expansion in technological progress and economic growth in general. But many historians do have an implicit demand-led growth or Keynesian story too, I should add. By the way, on the Keynesian view of many historians it might be worthwhile reading the last section of Garegnani and Palumbo's entry on the Elgar Companion to Classical Economics available here.

PS: This also suggests that on some level, particularly military and naval technology, the West was already ahead of the Oriental Empires considerably before Pomeranz and the revisionists time frame (i.e. around 1800).  However, the argument does not hinge on Eurocentric views about the superiority of culture, as in many neo-Weberian arguments (e.g. David Landes).

The Economist thinks bubbles are rational

Or at least is what they suggest in the popular blog Free Exchange. They bring back Peter Garber's research on the Tulipmania, and more recent research by Earl Thompson, which suggests that "the market for tulips was an efficient response to changing financial regulation." They conclude by arguing that:

"It is easy to claim that bubbles are irrational. They seem to represent a deviation of prices from fundamental values—and they contradict basic economic theory. But there has been little attempt to understand how speculation actually works. The example of tulipmania shows the importance of doing that—rather than relying on lazy quips about 'animal spirits' or irrationality."

The notion is related to the idea of the Arrow-Debreu models in which short term prices (they don't have long term prices associated with a uniform rate of profit) do reflect the fundamental values associated to the preferences of agents and the given technology and factor endowments. In this context, the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) suggests that the prices of financial assets reflect all market information, and as a result those prices would not deviate from their fundamentals. In other words, according to the EMH, bubbles do not exist.

Rational bubbles assume that rational behavior may still be associated with deviations of asset prices away from their fundamental values. In general, a self-confirming belief that asset prices depend on a variable that is intrinsically irrelevant, that is, not part of market fundamentals, is assumed. Much discussion goes into the behavioral assumptions that would make rational bubbles possible. Justin Fox's The Myth of the Rational Market, which I reviewed here (subscription required) provides an accessible introduction.

John Eatwell (here; subscription required) noted that a more relevant question than the rationality or not of bubbles is whether they are useful or not. Railroads were built on bubbles, and the dot.com bubble even left some infrastructure in terms of telecommunications that has been useful. Other bubbles, like the one associated with the subprime, are less obviously useful.

Finally, note that the old capital debates are still important to understand the limitations of much of this literature. Garegnani and Petri have noted that even the short run Arrow-Debreu models must bring investment to equality to full employment savings, and as a result some notion of a natural rate of interest is implicitly needed. And then all the problems of the aggregative model apply. So it is not possible to show that long term prices do reflect fundamentals associated with preferences, technology and endowments.

PS: On the related topic of whether the Bubble Act (financial regulation), that followed the South Sea Bubble, led to lower rates of growth see here. For the capital debates go here.

The natural rate in pure exchange, intertemporal models

One more clarification on the previous discussion about the natural rate in Austrian models. In his reply,  Mr. Rallo suggests (in Spanish) that I confused the natural rate that can be derived from a barter economy with the one derived from intertemporal equilibrium model. So let's start by clarifying that barter refers to whether there is money or not, while the notion of intertemporal equilibrium is associated to the nature of equilibrium, whether it is short-term or long-term.  You can have an intertemporal model of equilibrium with barter as several Arrow-Debreu models actually are.

Traditional notions of equilibrium, like the classical authors had, are not intertemporal, but several of those were based on barter ideas. Equilibrium in classical economics is a tendency associated to the process of competition that leads to a uniform rate of profit. Some authors had the real (meaning non-monetary) rate of profit govern the system and also the rate of interest, like Ricardo, while others like Tooke suggested that the rate of interest governed the rate of profit, and arguably there are elements in Marx analysis that suggest the possibility of an independent rate of interest.*

The notion of intertemporal equilibrium is relatively new and was developed by Hayek, Hicks, Lindahl, and Myrdal (see Milgate here; subscription required)  in the 1920s and 1930s, before it become common after the capital debates on the basis of the Arrow-Debreu model. Intertemporal models do not require the notion of a uniform rate of profit, and some authors have suggested that as such they are not open to the capital critique. Because they do not require a uniform rate of profit these models are short-term.

So the relevant point is the notion of equilibrium and not whether it is a barter or credit system [additionally that would bring about the way money is introduced in the economy, as mere toke for exchange, or as a unit of account in which agents want to accumulate, but that is a different issue]. Mind you, one might think that Mr. Rallo is suggesting that in a short-term model (with no tendency ot a uniform rate of profit) there is no need in marginalist models for a natural rate of interest (although we'll see that's not his point).

Yet, the point made by Garegnani and Petri is that in an intertemporal model with disaggregated means of production (capital goods), it is still necessary for the equilibration of aggregate investment to full employment savings, and that requires a measure of the quantity of capital, and that means, and by necessity a rate of interest. That rate of interest that equilibrates savings and investment is a natural rate.

Mr. Rallo seems to believe that there is a difference between a situation in which there are "lenders (savers) lending at 5% for a year, and investors that demand 5% for 30 years" (or in Spanish "ahorradores que prestan al 5% a 1 año e inversores que piden prestado al 5% a 30 años"), which would be different if both lenders and borrowers had the same time period in mind, but different rates.
Again, this involves not the intertemporal nature of the model, but the term structure of interest rates.

So taking away the adjustment for risk associated to the longer-term that financial capital would be tied to investment, in the neoclassical theory arbitrage should still work. So presumably the rate would be more than 5% for the 30 year loan. This has nothing to do with the necessity in Austrian theory, as in any type of marginalist model, of a quantity of capital and a natural rate of interest. Neither barter nor the term structure of the rate of interest (or the more relevant discussion of the short-term nature of intertemporal models) relieves the marginalist (and Austrian) theories from a need for a natural rate of interest.

The only consistent way to get rid of the notion, is to abandon the marginalist approach, and like Sraffa assume that one distributive variable, in his case the monetary rate of interest, is given exogenously. Savings then is adjusted to investment by the multiplier process (i.e. Keynes and Kalecki's Principle of Effective Demand).

* Panico (1980, p. 269 here; subscription required) argues that: "Marx's analysis of the factors determining the rate of interest, he rejected any attempt to explain the determination of the average rate of interest on the basis of'laws of necessity'. He proposed instead, to investigate it by means of qualitative description, of those economic, conventional and institutional factors that, from time to time, affect this variable." So while its clear that Marx thought that the rate of profit determined the rate of interest, it is also reasonable to argue that there are contradictory propositions that suggest a determination of the normal rate of interest that is independent from the rate of profit.

PS: Thanks to Franklin Serrano for pointing my mistake on Quesnay (deleted; yes there is money in the Tableau as there is in Marx's simple reproduction system, derived from Quesnay) and the causality in Marx. Also, forgot the link to Milgate's paper, which is now in place.

On Austrians and the natural rate of interest

I don't often write about Austrians. As I noted before the reason is that, as a school of thought, Austrians are kind of irrelevant. They are part of the marginalist mainstream, but are often confused as heterodox (sometimes even Austrians don't know that they are neoclassical). In fact, Hayek was for the most part forgotten after Sraffa and others showed the inconsistencies of his theories in the 1930s, and if Austrians understood the consequences of the capital debates, their come back in the 1970s would seem even less reasonable.

Throughout their underground period, from the 1940s to the 70s, they were part of 'secret' societies in which only the initiated (complete adherence to the ideology) could participate, like the Mont Pèlerin Society, and creating think tanks, like the conservative Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), to promote the laissez faire ideology (note this had no basis in theory, since they cannot prove that markets produce efficient allocation of resources with a uniform rate of profit, but I'll get back to that below).

It was the rise of the conservative movement, a sort of Polanyian reaction to the Welfare State, that brought back all sorts of laissez faire cranks, and brought in the coattails Hayek and his disciples. In contrast to Milton Friedman, that used a fairly regular ISLM cum Phillips curve model, with the added natural rate, Hayek produced no relevant innovation, besides some poetry about the complexity of markets and uncertainty (which is why some confuse him with an heterodox author; blame Shackle for this).

Sissela Bok, the daughter of Gunnar Myrdal,* co-winner of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize with Hayek in 1974, recounts in her biography of her mother Alva [Alva Myrdal, Gunnar's wife received a real Nobel, the peace one in 1982] that the prize was given to Hayek by the Swedish economics establishment as a way to demean the prize. And if this is not enough, the guy that was supposedly for freedom, and for economic freedom because that one is central for political freedom, defended Pinochet. So really there is no economic or moral reason to take Austrians too seriously.

In sum, Austrians are really the most ideological wing of the neoclassical school, with all the other theoretical problems that the mainstream has. There is not much relevant to discuss there. So you might ask what is the post doing here. The reason is that there has a been a debate between Lord Keynes (nope not that one, the author of the very good blog Social Democracy for the 21st Century) and a Spanish Austrian author, and I was asked about my opinion. So here it is.

Some Austrians seem to think that their theory does not require a natural rate of interest. This might be the result of an incomplete understanding of Sraffa's 1932 critique of Hayek, in which he showed that there were as many own rates of interest (Sraffa's term) as commodities. At any rate, in the this recent debate the Austrian author says that in order to have a cycle Austrian don't need a natural rate and that:

"it suffices with showing that there is a mismatch between the term and risk structure that the marginal lenders (savers) are willing to fund and the term and risk structure associated with investment taking place in the economy." Or in Spanish in the original post: "le basta con mostrar que existe una descoordinación entre el plazo y el riesgo de las inversiones que están dispuestos a financiar los ahorradores marginales y el plazo y el riesgo asociados a las inversiones que se están efectuando en la economía."

So basically you need a mismacth between savings and investment. And dude, yes at the actual intersection of these two curves (often well behaved with savings being upward-sloping and investment downward-sloping) is an equilibrium interest rate, that would eliminate the mismatch. That's your natural rate. So, yes Austrians do have a natural rate**, even if they don't know it. Note that the capital debates show exactly that the idea of natural rate of interest inversely related with capital abundance (supply and demand) is not tenable. The poetry on market efficiency depends on being able to prove that. That's why the neoclassical project, and with it Austrians, has been derailed. It is really zombie economics.

* Myrdal coined the term monetary equilibrium to refer to the Wicksellian notion of an equilibrium between the natural and monetary or bank rates of interest. He also was a proto-Keynesian, and the key economist in the initial social democratic governments of the 1930s.

** According to Garegnani, in fact, even the inter-temporal Arrow-Debreu models, which supposedly do not have a uniform rate of profit, require a natural rate of interest to bring about the equilibrium of investment with full employment savings.

The meaning of short and long-term and the natural rate

From a history of economic thought point of view the turning point in the demise of the Keynesian Consensus based on the Neoclassical Synthesis was Friedman's rediscovery of Wicksell's natural rate. It was peculiar, in a sense, that it happened in the 1960s when the capital debates demonstrated (and was accepted by Samuelson, the High Priest of the Neoclassical Synthesis) that the natural rate made no theoretical sense. That led to a more significant and insidious change in economics. The abandonment of the notion of long-term equilibrium method, as noted by Garegnani.

Briefly stated, what the process entailed is that confronted with the fact that there is no possible way to relate some measure of capital with its remuneration (the idea that abundant capital would lead to a low level of remuneration, i.e. a low rate of interest, and the analogous one that full employment of capital could be obtained with a sufficiently low rate of interest) the mainstream reverted to the Arrow-Debreu (AD) notion that different types of capital had different remunerations and there was no tendency to a uniform rate of profit (interest). That, as noted by Garegnani, was a departure from the traditional method of economics. Up to the 1930s all economists, including the marginalists (neoclassical) ones did follow it.

Note that the long-term, associated with the uniform rate of interest (or profit), is a methodological instrument, not a particular period of chronological time. The long-term is just a period in which no variables are constant or fixed, and the process of competition, that allows for new entrants in every sector (with perfect competition) to lead to a uniform rate of interest. The short-term is by symmetry a situation in which something precludes the long-term situation to be achieved. For example, a typical short-term macroeconomic assumption is to assume a given level of productive capacity. The demand effect of investment (demand for equipment and installations) is taken into account, but not the capacity effect (the increase in the number of machines and plants).

That's why this comment by Miles Kimball (a supply-side liberal, talk about oxymoron) is so revealing of the confusion that now dominates the mainstrem. He says:

"To think clearly about economic fluctations at a somewhat more advanced level, I find I need to use these four different time scales:

• The Ultra Short Run: the period of about 9 months during which investment plans adjust—primarily as existing investment projects finish and new projects are started—to gradually bring the economy to short-run equilibrium. 

• The Short Run: the period of about 3 years during which prices (and wages) adjust gradually bring the economy to medium-run equilibrium.

• The Medium Run: the period of about 12 years during which the capital stock adjusts gradually to bring the economy to long-run equilibrium. 

• The Long Run: what the economy looks like after investment, prices and wages, and capital have all adjusted. In the long run, the economy is still evolving as technology changes and the population grows or shrinks."

Yes, that now passes for clarity of thinking. Short-term is a period of chronological time, long-term is conceptual methodological position. The confusion is compounded by the fact that he is trying to clarify what he sees as "a lot of confusion about the natural interest rate ... [and] the main source of confusion is that there is both a medium-run natural interest rate and a short-run natural interest rate." The natural rate is by definition a long-term position.

Old marginalists, like Wicksell or Marshall didn't think the system was at the natural rate in the short-run. It gravitated around it in the long-term. This idea of a short-run natural rate, derives from the AD short-run notion of a system that is always in equilibrium. And then he does use an aggregative version of an ISLM model (which is a long term sort of equilibrium notion). But he has no clue about the capital debates and its consequences. Oh well.

What is really neoclassical economics?

So Noah Smith thinks that I, Lars Syll and Steve Keen, and other heterodox bloggers (in which he adds Austrians; you see why they should teach History of Thought?* For a discussion of the meaning of heterodox economics, including why Austrians are not so, go here) use the term neoclassical economics as a pejorative term. In fact, in the post he links to, in which I do criticize his views on Graber's work, I do say this on neoclassical economics: "mainstream (neoclassical) notions about debt are really problematic." So nothing derogatory or abusive is suggested. What is said there is that certain views of that particular school of thought are not necessarily free of problems. So no, neoclassical is not a slur.

But before I get back to what I think Noah is trying to get to, we need to address the actual meaning of neoclassical economics. For starters neoclassical is a bit of a misnomer. Veblen invented the term to suggest continuity between the old classical school and the new marginalist school of his time, fundamentally based on Laissez Faire providing an intellectual link between both groups. But the continuity between classical authors and marginalists is not defensible, once one goes beyond certain policy stances and concentrates on the main theoretical propositions of both schools [in this respect the book by Krishna Bharadwaj is still worth reading]. But we are to some extent stuck with the name. So be it.

The core propositions in neoclassical economics are associated to what Garegnani referred to as the data of the system, that is, the variables that are taken as exogenous and allow explaining the functioning of the system, namely: the endowments of factors of production, the preferences of the economic agents, and technology. On the basis of these variables the supply and demand functions of all goods, including the so-called factors of production (capital, labor and land), can be determined, and as a result the relative prices of all goods and the efficient allocation of resources is established. Central to the approach is that supply and demand for labor and capital determine the remuneration of these factors of production, and as a result, and in contrast to classical political economy and Marx, income distribution is endogenously determined [there are insurmountable problems with this theory, as Paul Samuelson accepted, subscription required; for more go here]. And there are differences between the old version of neoclassical models based on the notion of a long term equilibrium (which is what is still taught in undergrad courses) and the intertemporal version, but for our purposes we can just omit the differences.

Note that Noah says that neoclassical economics is: "Assumption of individual rationality, utility maximization, and supply/demand." But this is at best incomplete, and at worst simply incorrect. Yes they assume individual rationality, but that was also true of classical authors like Smith, Ricardo and Marx, who wouldn't assume that capitalists did not rationally pursue profits. And a more relevant discussion would be about types of rationality, substantive or bounded (like in Simon, but I'll leave that for another post). And also, social utility, not personal individual subjective utility, was essential for classical authors, since nothing that didn't have use value (utility) would be produced. Finally, market prices, but not long term natural or production prices, were determined by supply and demand, and disequilibrium played a role in gravitation towards normal prices. So the three characteristics are not enough to distinguish Ricardo and Marx from Marshall or Noah Smith. The essential thing is that supply and demand determine the long term normal prices of everything including factors of production (endogenous distribution).

Noah then points out that papers that deal with the issues in the core are almost not published. He says that publication of papers that deal with the theoretical core fell "from over half of top-journal econ papers in 1963 to less than 28% in 2011." As it should be, in particular with a core that has been revealed to be so full of problems since the capital debates. And yes, most developments like the Acemoglu et al. paper (discusses here in various places by Cesaratto and I, also here) are orthogonal to the core. But these are developments outside the core, but still within the so-called protective belt of the neoclassical paradigm or research program (for protective belts and paradigms go here and here). The problem is that they still presume that the neoclassical theory in the core holds. Note that they suggest that a minimal government that protects private property rights is enough for development, something that goes hand in hand with the neoclassical core. So a lot of the time what seems to be the use of neoclassical economics as an insult is just frustration about the inconsistencies that appear between the empirical research in the protective belt and the incoherence in the core.

Mind you, as students and newly minted PhDs like Noah have never heard or read on the capital debates, and have not been exposed to the authors of the surplus approach and Marx (besides reading less in other disciplines in the social sciences) it is not surprising that the term neoclassical is seen as an insult hurled at them by crazy and older heterodox economists. But it's not. Don't get me wrong, the core of neoclassical economics is not good or bad in itself, but it is logically flawed.

* By the way, it should be required at both the graduate and undergraduate level, since many graduate students come from other disciplines. A discipline that does not understand its own history is bound to move blindly rediscovering old truths, accepting already discarded myths, and forgetting useful ideas. And you might have, also, the paradoxical situation of a neoclassical economist that does not know what neoclassical economics is (like Dave Chappelle's black white supremacist).

PS: Note that Noah is not responsible for the definition of neoclassical economics he uses, which was lifted from Wikipedia. And yes Wikipedia is not the best source.

Garegnani on Sraffa, Ricardo and Marx

I was going to write something about the Ricardian roots of Marx, but in all fairness a lot of ink has already been spilled on the subject. Here is the reply to the question about the relation between Sraffa and Marx, given by Garegnani in 1978 (here for the whole interview; subscription required):

"The conception which some people have of this relationship [Sraffa and Marx] seems to me quite misleading. And in order to reach a correct understanding of it, we first have to grasp the true relationship between Marx and Ricardo. I have argued elsewhere that this latter relationship should be seen in terms of a strict continuity at the level of economic analysis. Of course, unlike Ricardo and the classical economists, Marx sought to show that the capitalist mode of production is no more permanent than the modes which came before it. But this does not contradict my previous point, since it is perfectly normal that a given theoretical approach should reveal to one author a series of consequences that were not brought to light by his predecessors. That was precisely the relationship, for Marx, between his ‘critique of political economy’ (that is, his demonstration of the transitory character of capitalism) and the work of Ricardo. In fact, Marx deduces the transitory character of capitalism from a kernel of analyses whose object is what he often called ‘the inner nexus of bourgeois economic relations’—essentially, the antagonistic relationship between wages and profits. Now, as Marx himself repeatedly stated, this ‘inner nexus’ was discovered by the classical economists, and analysed especially in Ricardo’s theory of surplus-value and profits. It was precisely this theory which he took up and developed in his ‘critique’. Once this continuity between the classical economists and Marx has been understood, it is easy to grasp the true relationship between Sraffa and Marx. For a revival of the classical approach is possible only if it starts from the highest point of development attained in the past—that is to say, the point at which we find it in Marx’s work."

This is why in the forthcoming documentary on Capitalism, written and directed by documentary filmmaker Ilan Ziv and organized around key historical debates and thinkers, I argued that Marx should be, contra-Samuleson, be seen as a major Ricardian.

On Sraffa and the labor theory of value this is what Garegnani had to say:

"This brings us back to the second of the three aspects of Sraffa’s work: namely, his proposed solution to the problem of value based on more general hypotheses than those which assert that commodities exchange in accordance with the labour embodied in them. Solving this problem and abandoning the labour theory of value are, in reality, two sides of the same coin: any living theoretical approach has to develop, undergoing modification and modifying its own propositions. Now, it is indeed sometimes said that Sraffa has thrown Marx’s economic theory into crisis. But in order to understand this point of view, we must recall the significance attached to the labour theory of value by that Marxist tradition which arose at the end of the nineteenth century, following the marginalist attack on Marx. I have argued elsewhere that the positions developed at that time were of an essentially defensive character; and that they reflected a temporary state of theoretical weakness which is now, largely thanks to Sraffa, in the process of being overcome.

This being said, however, it is important to remember that Sraffa created only the premises for a revival of the classical and Marxist theoretical approach. He did this by clarifying anew the basic elements of that approach, and by providing a solution to the problems of value-theory that had remained unanswered. It would thus be a mistake to seek in Production of Commodities what is not actually there: to seek, that is, a theory of capital accumulation and crises, or even a theory of the way in which relations between the two social classes determine the division of the product between wages and profits. I would maintain that, so far as all these problems are concerned, Sraffa refers us to the place where they receive the most advanced treatment in the framework of this theoretical approach—essentially to Marx’s Capital, and to all the work which has to be done in order to develop Marx’s ideas in conformity with the present state of reality and economic knowledge."

Note that Sraffa suggested that his solution, based on the standard commodity, could be interpreted as akin to Smith's labor commanded theory of value, and as such could (and I would say should) be seen as a logically coherent version of the labor theory of value (discussed in this previous post).

PS: As I was writing this I saw that Robert Vienneau has just posted on the same topic here.