Sraffa and the Confidence Fairy

Sraffa's views on macroeconomic issues are difficult to gather since he didn't directly write on the issue. However, there is some evidence that he believed in the accelerator, that is, the idea that investment is induced demand, depending on variations of the level of income. Franklin Serrano points out the following passage in a paper by Terenzio Cozzi (my translation, so remember that in this case it is true that il traduttore è un traditore):

“In the spring of 1963 or in the fall of 1964, I asked Sraffa why he had chosen to take as a given, not the real wage, but the rate of profit, and had suggested that the level of the latter could be influenced in particular by the monetary rate of interest. He replied that in the past entrepreneurs, in deciding how much to invest, were strongly influenced by the general state of economy and how the level of activity evolved in recent periods. At the first sign of a decline in production levels, they decided to stop investing. Now, however – we are in 63 or 64 – the entrepreneurs expect that the authorities will still be able to adjust the performance of the system back to its normal growth path. Even bankers think in this way. That's why the interest rate is an indicator of the normal rate of profit. And that's also why the fluctuations of the past are no more, and economic growth is stabler.” Terenzio Cozzi (1986), “Un teoria con un grado di libertà,” in Riccardo Bellofiore (a cura di) Tra teoria economica e grande cultura europea: Piero Sraffa, Franco Angeli, Milano, p. 208.

In the original:

“Nella primavera del 1963 o nell' autunno del 1964, ho chiesto a Sraffa come mai egli avesso preferito assumere come dato, non il tasso di salario, ma il tasso di profitto e avesse sostenoto que che il livello de quest'ultimo poteva essere influenziato in particolare dai livelli dei tassi dell' interesse monetario. Mi rispose che nel passato gli imprenditori , nel decidere quanto investire, erano fortemente influenziati dall' andamento generali dell' economia e da come si erano manifestati questi andamenti nei periodi ricenti. Al primo accenno di caduta di livelli produttivi, decidevano bloccare gli investimenti. Attualmente invece - siamo nel 63' o 64' - essi si aspettano che la autorità saranno comunque in grado di regolare l' andamento del sistema riportandolo in condizioni di crescita normale. Si aspettano, quindi, che la redditività dei loro investimenti tornerà rapidamente al livello normale. Anche i banchieri ragionano in questo modo. Ecco perché i tassi di interesse rappresentano un indicatori del tasso di profitto normale. Ed ecco perché questo non ha piu' le oscillazioni del passato, e cosi la crescita del sistema è piu' stabile.”

No doubt that Sraffa didn't believe in confidence fairies.

The IMF and stylized fiction

The IMF has posted their Top 20 list of most popular entries since the launch of the blog. At #3 they have the Ten Commandments of Fiscal Adjustement in Advanced Economies, which is from 2010, but still worth reading, since their views have hardly changed. I am not going to go through the whole list, even though it does merit careful analysis. I want just to point out a few problems with three of the commandments (do they really need the religious analogy?). This 10 Commandments are based on the IMF's views on the stylized facts of fiscal consolidations.

Note that the IMF wants a reduction in debt-to-GDP ratios in the long run (commandment #3), even if nobody knows exactly what is the difference of having a 40% ratio, which they recommend for 'emerging markets' (meaning developing economies), or a 250%, as the UK had during the Napoleonic Wars (here). My first concern is with the idea that consolidation (by which they mean austerity) should be done by cutting spending and not increasing taxes (#4), because this is more conducive to growth.

This is a proposition they repeat in their last Fiscal Monitor (2012: p. 35), where we are told that:

"a number of earlier studies have shown that expenditure-based fiscal consolidations have a more favorable effect on output than revenue-based consolidations, in spite of the standard multiplier analysis … Chapter 3 of the October 2010 World Economic Outlook reaches the same conclusion (IMF, 2010b) and notes that this result is partly because, on average, central banks lower interest rates more in the case of expenditure-based consolidations (perhaps because they regard them as more long-lasting)."

Note, however, that the reason for the superior performance for cutting spending instead of raising taxes (on the rich one would hope) is that the Central Bank does not hike rates in the former case, since it is part of a conservative plan to reduce the size of government (note that the IMF asks for consolidations to be fair, #6, but then wants to cuts social spending, #5). Worse the notion is also based on the idea that lower (higher) spending brings down (up) the rate of interest and leads to crowding in (out) of private investment. The problem is that the evidence for a positive (negative) effect of fiscal deficits (surplus), or public spending increase (reduction), on interest rates, is that it is almost non-existent (see UNCTAD, 2011, chapter 3 for a review).

The other point is related to the last commandment (#10), which says that you should coordinate your macroeconomic policies with other countries. I'm not even going to deal with the problems of coordination. My problem is that the arguments tend to be based on the Mundell-Fleming (MF) model (the ISLMBP with perfect capital mobility), which suggests that fiscal policy is less efficient in a small open economy. In this case, fiscal policy raises the rate of interest, with capital mobility, pressures for inflows lead to an appreciation of the currency, and lower trade surpluses. Instead of crowding out, meaning lower investment, one gets lower output from the external accounts. That's why they say in their last Fiscal Monitor that "in line with the theory, fiscal multipliers tend to be smaller in more open economies" (2012, p. 33).

Again this depends on a weak empirical relation. In the United States seldom is the case that expansionary fiscal policy causes higher rates of interest. In fact, the policy of the strong dollar, with the impact on manufacturing output and exports, has often been detached from fiscal expansionism or higher rates of interest (e.g. the Clinton years in which a strong dollar went hand in hand with fiscal consolidation and monetary easing to feed the dot-com bubble).

Finally, note that even small open economies in several periods were able to have very effective fiscal policies, because in spite of relatively flexible exchange rates, they used capital controls to avoid the effects of volatile capital flows on their external accounts. In this sense, the world of relatively regulated capital flows, rather than of fixed exchange rates (even if sometimes the two are confounded as a result of the Bretton Woods arrangement), seems to be more conducive to effective fiscal policy. So the lesson should not be that small open economies cannot do effective fiscal policy, but that capital controls (which they are not quite okay with contrary to what you might have heard, but I leave for another post) are necessary.

PS: For a more consistent theoretical critique of the MF model see Serrano and Summa (2012).

More on Sraffa and the theory of value and distribution

Two posts by Alejandro Fiorito, at the Revista Circus blog, and Robert Vienneau follow up my previous post on Sraffa and the Labor Theory of Value (LTV). The former is on the debate between Garegnani and Samuelson, just published in a book edited by Heinz Kurz. Garegnani, who debated with Samuelson since the latter's seminal paper on the production function as a parable back in the early 1960s, basically argued against the notion that Sraffa's system can be seen as a special case of Walrasian General Equilibrium, which was ultimately Samuelson's position.

Vienneau discusses several issues. One that I think it's particularly relevant is Steedman's view that one might have a positive profit rate and negative aggregate surplus value. Serrano and Lucas (not that Lucas!) have written a paper on the subject which suggests that Steedman's counterintuitive results are basically irrelevant. At any rate, as noted by Robert, "Marxist political economy should remain a live and exciting field of scholarly research," and this is to a great extent possible because of Sraffa's legacy.

The surplus approach and institutions: Diamond vs. Acemoglu & Robinson

By Sergio Cesaratto (guest blogger)

The European crisis absorbs me so much – also politically and personally since our lives are involved – that not much time is left for what now appear as a divertissement, more abstract economic research. So not much time to devote to this post then. Somebody might like, however, to develop this line of research.

If anybody wants to be persuaded of the correctness and fruitfulness of the 'surplus approach' by Sraffa (1951) and Garegnani (1984), a reading of Jared Diamond Guns, Germs, and Steel would be enough to convince herself.[1] What is surprising – but not really at a closer scrutiny – is that Diamond does not quote any classical economist in his book – he does not mention any economist at all indeed. The likely explanation is that he has only been exposed to neoclassical economics and, of course, he could not find anything interesting there.[2] Also Acemoglu and Robinson (A&R) are neoclassical economists. Their neoclassicism is shown by the role that they attribute to the 'right' institutions in setting the correct incentives to individual entrepreneurship. Although in a very diplomatic way, Diamond is very critical of their attempt to explain why some regions developed earlier while other developed later or not at all. In his review of Why Nations Fail in the New York Review of Books Diamond (2012a) aptly summarises A&R’s thesis:

“Different economists have different views about the relative importance of the conditions and factors that make countries richer or poorer. The factors [A&R] most discuss are so-called “good institutions,” which may be defined as laws and practices that motivate people to work hard, become economically productive, and thereby enrich both themselves and their countries… Among the good economic institutions that motivate people to become productive are the protection of their private property rights, predictable enforcement of their contracts, opportunities to invest and retain control of their money, control of inflation, and open exchange of currency. For instance, people are motivated to work hard if they have opportunities to invest their earnings profitably, but not if they have few such opportunities or if their earnings or profits are likely to be confiscated.”

The indictment Diamond moves to A&R is that, although the institutions they refer to are relevant:

“as readers may quickly confirm for themselves, it is indeed a fair characterization of Acemoglu and Robinson’s book to say that their theory is as if institutions appeared at random. Although their letter describes institutional variation today as a systematic outcome of historical processes, much of their book is actually devoted to relating story after story purportedly explaining how institutional variation developed unsystematically and at random, as a result of particular events happening in particular places at critical junctures.” (Diamond 2012b)

“Acemoglu and Robinson’s view of history is that small effects at critical junctures have long-lasting effects, so it’s hard to make predictions. While they don’t say so explicitly, this view suggests that good institutions should have cropped up randomly around the world, depending on who happened to decide what at some particular place and time.” (Diamond 2012a)

As well known, according to Diamond, complex political institutions emerged around 3400 BC in specific parts of the globe where material circumstances related, to the climate and to the availability of domesticable vegetable and animals (there are not so many) made profitable for the humans to transit from populations of hunter/gatherers to sedentary civilisations. With agriculture a surplus of food emerged that unlashed the possibility of creating a class of people not engaged in a daily fight to collect food and survive, but that could dedicate themselves (exploiting the rest, of course) to the political organisation of society, to write legal codes, to philosophy (that includes science and technology) and to war.

Any student of the classical economists will recognize the echo of Petty, Turgot and Adam Smith in this approach. It worth quoting at length:

“it’s obvious that good institutions, and the wealth and power that they spawned, did not crop up randomly. For instance, all Western European countries ended up richer and with better institutions than any tropical African country. Big underlying differences led to this divergence of outcomes. Europe has had a long history (of up to nine thousand years) of agriculture based on the world’s most productive crops and domestic animals, both of which were domesticated in and introduced to Europe from the Fertile Crescent, the crescent-shaped region running from the Persian Gulf through southeastern Turkey to Upper Egypt. Agriculture in tropical Africa is only between 1,800 and 5,000 years old and based on less productive domesticated crops and imported animals.

As a result, Europe has had up to four thousand years’ experience of government, complex institutions, and growing national identities, compared to a few centuries or less for all of sub-Saharan Africa. Europe has glaciated fertile soils, reliable summer rainfall, and few tropical diseases; tropical Africa has unglaciated and extensively infertile soils, less reliable rainfall, and many tropical diseases. Within Europe, Britain had the further advantages of being an island rarely at risk from foreign armies, and of fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, which became open after 1492 to overseas trade.

It should be no surprise that countries with those advantages ended up rich and with good institutions, while countries with those disadvantages didn’t. The chain of causation leading slowly from productive agriculture to government, state formation, complex institutions, and wealth involved agriculturally driven population explosions and accumulations of food surpluses, leading in turn to the need for centralized decision-making in societies much too populous for decision-making by face-to-face discussions involving all citizens, and the possibility of using the food surpluses to support kings and their bureaucrats. This process unfolded independently, beginning around 3400 BC, in many different parts of the ancient world with productive agriculture, including the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, China, the Indus Valley, Crete, the Valley of Mexico, the Andes, and Polynesian Hawaii.” (Diamond 2012a)

The graph (see the original in Diamond 1997) summarises the chain of material circumstances (including the easier communications and similarity of climate in Eurasia) that Diamond advances as an explanation of the variety of growth experiences.

As said, had Diamond been exposed to Classical Political Economy, he would have recognised the ancestors of his theory in Petty, Turgot and Smith. As known, Turgot and Smith shared a “stage theory” of growth very similar to that by Diamond (see Meek 1971; 1976).[3]

Few quotations from “On Universal History” (1750 [2011]) will confirm the similarity between Turgot and Diamond (and Adam Smith, of course) (my italics):

"Without provisions, and in the depths of forests, men could devote themselves to nothing but obtaining their subsistence. (p. 351)

There are animals which allow themselves to be brought into subjection by men, such as oxen, sheep, and horses, and men find it more advantageous to gather them together into herds than to chase after wandering animals.

It did not take long for the pastoral way of life to be introduced in all places where these animals were met with: oxen and sheep in Europe, camels and goats in the east, horses in Tartary, and reindeer in the north.

The way of life of hunting peoples is maintained in the parts of America where these species are lacking. …

Pastoral peoples, whose subsistence is more abundant and more assured, were the most numerous. They began to grow richer, and to understand better the idea of property. (p. 352)

Pastoral peoples in fertile countries were no doubt the first to move on to the state of agriculture. Hunting peoples, who are deprived of the assistance of animals to manure the soil and to facili­tate labor, were unable to arrive so soon at agriculture. If they culti­vate any land at all, it is only a small quantity; when it is exhausted they move their habitation elsewhere; and if they are able to aban­don their nomadic life it is only by infinitely slow steps.

Husbandmen are not by nature conquerors; the cultivation of the land keeps them too busy. But, being more wealthy than the other peoples, they were obliged to defend themselves against vio­lence. Besides, with them the land can sustain many more men than are necessary in order to cultivate it. Hence people who are unoc­cupied; hence towns, trade, and all the useful arts and accomplish­ments; hence more rapid progress in every sphere, for everything fol­lows the general advancement of the mind; hence greater skill in war than in the case of barbarians; hence the division of occupations and the inequality of men; hence slavery in domestic form, and the sub­jection of the weaker sex (always bound up with barbarism), the hard­ship of which increases in proportion to the increase in wealth. But at the same time a more searching enquiry into government begins." (p. 355)

From these quotations the sequence food surplus à complex institutions is clear.[4]

In their reply to Diamond, A&R (2012) argue that:

"Diamond’s theory predicts that the Neolithic Revolution would happen first in Eurasia, but cannot account for differences in prosperity today, which are huge within Eurasia and not explained by the timing of the Neolithic Revolution."

This is the challenge to future research. How the surplus approach may help to explain recent growth episode and differentials? Of course the theory of long-period effective demand is central in this regard. Possibly, the efficiency of the wage-goods sector has had a role in facilitating growth in episodes of strongly export-led growth, by allowing a constant increase of the standard of living of workers in a non inflationary environment. Or, on the other hand, a too big size of the social surplus becomes a problem in advanced capitalists economies as Marx, Rosa Luxemburg and Kalecki taught us. Workers must share a part of it, letting wages to go beyond the subsistence level, to let the system to work. Well, it time to stop and leave the stage to other voices (see the post by Matias Vernengo for a start).

AppendixEGT, Diamond and the surplus approach on population growth and human development

In Cesaratto (2010) on EGT I wrote (inspired, at least partially, by Franklin Serrano):

“According [to the EGT exponent Charles Jones, e.g. 2002, 2004) productivity growth depends on population growth. Jones fervently defends this sort of causality (e.g. 2002, pp.103-104). After all, he argues, humans are the ultimate fuel of the process of research, and it should not be surprising that faster population growth has a positive effect on the generation of new ideas. Jones’ favourite quotation is from Phelps (1968, pp.511-512), according to whom: ‘One can hardly imagine …how poor we would be today were it not for the rapid population growth of the past to which we owe the enormous number of technological advances enjoyed today. …If I could re-do the history of the world, halving population size each year from the beginning of time on some random basis, I would not do it for fear of losing Mozart in the process’. One might certainly argue that halving the German speaking population of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would entail the risk of losing many of the greatest musicians ever, but this could be done to other populations of comparable size, in that or other periods, without much fear of losing outstanding talents. Ruling out genetic factors, something therefore seems to be missing from this population-driven mechanics of growth.

Jones (2004, pp. 48-56) discusses these possible objections at some length. Looking at different regions of the world in the very long term (12,000 years or so), some relationship seems to emerge between population size at the beginning of the period and their technological rank measured at the year 1000/1500 or so (before European explorations ended the isolation of various areas). The rationale of this correlation (ibid, p. 56) would lie in the following virtuous circle: at the beginning a small population could only generate ideas over long periods of time. Low productivity levels and subsistence kept the population constant. However, once one idea was produced subsistence levels and fertility rose, leading to a larger population. This in turn facilitated the production of new ideas over shorter lapses of time, and so on and so forth (see also Jones and Romer, 2009, pp. 10, 14, 24-25).

A scholar quoted in this regard is Jared Diamond (1997) who is, however, totally misinterpreted by these authors. In his famous book, Diamond argues that some environmental advantages, in particular the availability of suitable vegetable and animal species, made possible to some luckier populations some 10 thousand years ago to realise a food surplus and to become “large, dense, sedentary, stratified populations” (1997, p.87 and passim). More precisely, the realisation of food surpluses permitted these populations to grow more rapidly and to support a political class that, at the price of the exclusive control of the surplus, provided organisational, institutional, and military leadership. Moreover, the surplus allowed for the sustenance of those who Adam Smith would have called ‘philosophers or men of speculation, whose trade it is, not to do anything, but to observe everything’ (1776 [1979], p.21). It is clear from Diamond that population growth is not and cannot be the original source of “ideas” since both division of labour and population growth both logically and historically originate from the emergence of food surpluses. This is enough to show the closeness of Diamond to the Classical economists’ surplus approach, as well as his distance from the poor growth mechanics of EGT.”

This was what I wrote few years ago. I may add this. Turgot puts the question in a way similar to Smith: given two populations of the same size, it is education (that is the degree of division of labour) that makes the difference:

“The original aptitudes are distributed equally among barbarous peoples and among civilized peoples; they are probably the same in all places and at all times. Genius is spread through the human race very much as gold is in a mine. The more ore you take, the more metal you will get. The more men there are, the more great men you will have, or the more men capable of becoming great. The chances of education and of events either develop them, or leave them bur­ied in obscurity, or sacrifice them before their time, like fruits blown down by the wind.)” (p. 378).

Diamond, as the Classical economists, regards the size of the population, or its concentration in smaller territories towns etc. as an advantage from many points of view. But the material conditions that set off the emergence of a food surplus are the trigger:

“correlations suggest strongly that regional population size or population density or population pressure has something to do with the formation of complex societies. But the correlations do not tell us precisely how population variables function in a chain of cause and effect whose outcome is a complex society. To trace out that chain, let us now remind ourselves how large dense populations themselves arise. Then we can examine why a large but simple society could not maintain itself. With that as background, we shall finally return to the question of how a simpler society actually becomes more complex as the regional population increases. We have seen that large or dense populations arise only under conditions of food production, or at least under exceptionally productive conditions for hunting-gathering. Some productive hunter-gatherer societies reached the organizational level of chiefdoms, but none reached the level of states: all states nourish their citizens by food production. These considerations, along with the just mentioned correlation between regional population size and societal complexity, have led to a protracted chicken-or-egg debate about the causal relations between food production, population variables, and societal complexity. Is it intensive food production that is the cause, triggering population growth and somehow leading to a complex society? Or are large populations and complex societies instead the

cause, somehow leading to intensification of food production?

Posing the question in that either-or form misses the point. Intensified food production and societal complexity stimulate each other, by autocatalvsis. That is, population growth leads to societal complexity, by mechanisms that we shall discuss, while societal complexity in turn leads to intensified food production and thereby to population growth. Complex centralized societies are uniquely capable of organizing public works (including irrigation systems), long-distance trade (including the importation of materials to make better agricultural tools), and activities of different groups of economic specialists (such as feeding herders with farmers' cereal, and transferring the herders' livestock to farmers for use as plow animals}. All of these capabilities of centralized societies have fostered intensified food production and hence population growth throughout history.

In addition, food production contributes in at least three ways to specific features of complex societies. First, it involves seasonally pulsed inputs of labor. When the harvest has been stored, the farmers' labor becomes available for a centralized political authority to harness—in order to build public works advertising state power (such as the Egyptian pyramids), or to build public works that could feed more mouths (such as Polynesian Hawaii's irrigation systems or fishponds), or to undertake wars of conquest to form larger political entities.

Second, food production may be organized so as to generate stored food surpluses, which permit economic specialization and social stratification. The surpluses can be used to feed all tiers of a complex society: the chiefs, bureaucrats, and other members of the elite; the scribes, craftspeople, and other non-food-producing specialists; and the farmers themselves, during

times that they are drafted to construct public works.

Finally, food production permits or requires people to adopt sedentary living, which is a prerequisite for accumulating substantial possessions, developing elaborate technology and crafts, and constructing public works.” (pp.185-6)

References:

Cesaratto, S. (2010), Endogenous growth theory twenty years on: a critical assessment, Bulletin f Political Economy, vol.4, n.1, working paper version Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia politica, Università di Siena, n.559

ID (con F.L.Serrano) (2002), As Leis de rendimento nas teorias neoclasica de crescimiento: Una critica Sraffiana, Revista Ensaios FEE, vol.23. (English version www.networkideas.org – International Development Economics Association).

ID (1999), Savings and economic growth in neoclassical theory: A critical survey, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol.23.

ID (1999), New and Old Neoclassical Growth Theory: a Critical Assessment , in G.Mongiovi, F.Petri (a cura di), Value, Distribution and Capital: Essays in Honour of Pierangelo Garegnani, Routledge.

Acemoğlu, D. & Robinson, J. A. (2011) Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, Profile.

Acemoglu D. and Robinson J.A., reply by Jared Diamond, The New York Review of Books, 16 August 2012.

Diamond J. 2005 [1997], Guns, Germs and Steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years (London: Vintage).

Diamond (2012a), ‘What Makes Countries Rich or Poor?’, The New York Review of Books, June 7:

Diamond J. (2012), Reply to A&R, The New York Review of Books, 16 August 2012.
Garegnani, P. (1984) Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists and Marx, Oxford Economic Papers, 3: 291–325.

Meek R. (1971) Smith, Turgot and the Four Stages Theory, History of Political Economy, 3, 9-27.

Meek, R.L. (1976) Social Science and the Ignoble Savage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jones, C. (2002) Introduction to Economic Growth, New York: Norton.

Jones, C.I. (2004) ‘Growth and Ideas’, NBER Working Papers: no. 10767.

Jones, C.I. and Romer P.M. (2009) ‘The New Kaldor Facts: Idea, Institutions, Population, and Human Capital’, NBER Working Papers: n. 15094.

Phelps, E.S. (1968) ‘Population Increase’, Canadian Journal of Economics 1: 497-518.
Sraffa, P. (1951) Introduction to Ricardo's Principles, in Ricardo, D. (1951-73) Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Vol. I.

Turgot (2011), The Turgot Collection, Writings, Speeches, and Letters of Anne Robert Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, Edited by David Gordon, Mises Institute, available at http://mises.org/document/6298/The-Turgot-Collection-Writings-Speeches-and-Letters-of-Anne-Robert-Jacques-Turgot-Baron-de-Laune


Notes:

[1] Franklin Serrano suggested to me to read Diamond many years ago.

[2] On Endogenous Growth Theory (EGT), the most ambitious attempt by the mainstream to explain economic growth, see Cesaratto 1999a, 1999b, 2010, and Cesaratto & Serrano 2002. See also the appendix.

[3] Meek (1976) points out that both Turgot and Smith regarded the protection of property rights as a result of development rather than a cause of it.

[4] True, Turgot as much as A&R dismiss the role of the climate as a determining factor: “A reason for these differences which are found between nations has been sought in differences of climate. This view, modified a lit­tle and rightly restricted only to those climatic influences which are always the same, has recently been adopted by one of the greatest geniuses of our century. But the conclusions which are drawn from it are hasty, to say the least, and are extremely exaggerated. They are belied by experience, since under the same climates peoples are dif­ferent; since under climates which resemble one another very little we very often find peoples with the same character and the same turn of mind” (379-80) But I do not believe that this would change much my argument.

PS: Also read the following post on the same topic here or here where the argument extends to William McNeill and other historians.

State of the World Economy: A South Centre's Perspective

During last Rio+20 Conference the South Centre organized a session with some local economists on the state of the world economy, which to a great extent reflects the views of their chief economist Yilmaz Akyüz (hat tip to Butch Montes for the link). Their views tend to be very pessimistic about the possibilities of sustained growth in the periphery and the continuity of the so-called double speed recovery, fast in the periphery and slow in the center.

For them the boom in the periphery in the New Millennium was caused by the commodity boom, and that, in turn, was dependent on China's exceptional growth record, which was heavily dependent on exports to developed countries. So the castle of cards is about to fall.

My views are slightly different (see here and here). I tend to think that Chinese growth may very well slow down, but may continue on the basis of domestic demand, and the structural transformation of the economy that will have to incorporate hundred millions in the next decades in the urban centers. Also, although the commodity boom eased the external constraint in other parts of the periphery, a lot of the growth was the result of the expansion of domestic demand too.

Also, as noted by the last Trade and Development Report by UNCTAD the expansion in several parts of the periphery has been based on higher rates of wage expansion, in other words, it has been based on an improvement of income distribution and higher domestic demand, in contrast to the stagnating wages in the center.

Finally, it is important also to note that commodity prices may also respond to speculation (as noted in the TDR report above), which explains the volatility of prices in the last decade, but also, as noticed in a recent paper by Franklin Serrano the supply conditions, and may for that reason be less vulnerable to a slowdown in China. In his view, part of the explanation of higher prices is the result of the revival of natural resource nationalism in a large number of developing countries, which has increased the state control of oil reserves and substantially raised the royalty rates and, the absolute rent component of the price of production of commodities.

So, perhaps China will still grow at a reasonably fast rate, and commodity prices might continue at relatively high levels, and there will still be some space for developing countries that do not decide, by doing fiscal adjustments of their own (yes I'm thinking about Latin Americans in particular), to cool down their economies to continue to grow. Sure enough a collapse of the euro, and of world trade, and a run for quality (towards dollars) might as well, as Abraracourcix feared, imply that the sky will fall on our heads, par Toutatis!

Prices and quantities

Mainstream economics suggests that prices and quantities should be treated simultaneously, as it should be if market prices as determined by supply and demand are at the center of the analytical framework. With supply and demand, it must be the case that the quantity produced, and the equilibrium price, both are determined simultaneously. Further, it is the case that, with price flexibility, the quantity produced is optimal from the perspective of the utilization of resources and the preferences of the agents. And if that is true for bananas, or any other commodity for that matter, it must be true too for labor and ‘capital.’

As I discussed before, in particular with respect to capital, this approach (supply and demand or marginalist), which contrasts with the surplus approach, has serious problems. Even if we dismiss, for simplicity sake, the subjective part (about preferences) and concentrate just on supply conditions, the difficulties are insurmountable. Producers only supply more at higher prices, which means that they must encounter increasing costs (diminishing returns). It cannot be the case that they are only willing to supply more at higher prices (higher remuneration) even if costs are not higher, since if one producer obtained higher remuneration free entry of new producers (attracted by the higher remuneration) would imply that more would be produced. So the supply curve depends on diminshing returns.

And diminishing returns are a highly improbable proposition, as Sraffa argued back in the 1920s. Not many producers, if any, would tell you that they don’t produce more because their costs would go up (and that would reduce demand as prices get higher). Most simply would reply that, although they could produce more at the same price, they don’t have enough demand. But the diminishing returns fetish dominates the profession (I won’t say anything here about imperfect competition, but Franklin Serrano noted here that this would be related to barriers to entry).

In the surplus approach, that concerns itself with the way in which societies reproduce themselves (usually in an amplified scale and with accumulation), prices and quantities are treated separately. Since costs of production, for a given technology, seem to be independent from the quantity produced (i.e. the cost would be the same if you produced slightly more or less), then the quantity can be taken as given for the discussion of the determination of prices. It is well know that, in that case, prices depend on the technology, which must allow for reproduction (including of the labor force) and by the way in which the surplus (what is left over, above and beyond the needs of reproduction) is divided between classes.

This separation between prices and quantities has been called by Garegnani the 'method of given quantities.' Note that it does not imply that the quantities are determined by supply or given at a level that is optimal from the point of view of utilization of resources. And that is why it is perfectly compatible with Keynes’ notion of a demand determined level of activity (yes you can, and should, add Sraffa to your Keynes, or Kalecki). Also, it does not mean that there is no technical change or that distribution does not affect output (all propositions that have been discussed here in the blog).

Be that as it may, I’m more interested in the macroeconomic implications of the mainstream views about prices and quantities. Since the late 1960s, these views have coalesced around the notion that, whereas there is a short run tradeoff between prices and quantities (the so-called Phillips Curve, PC), in the long run the tradeoff vanishes. Put simply, if you push demand too much (through fiscal and monetary policy), output would increase, unemployment fall (as per Okun’s Law: higher output implies lower unemployment) and inflation would accelerate. In the long run, however, the economy is self-adjusted and output cannot be above the optimal level, so the only effect of the expansionary policies would be inflation (Friedman dixit).

By the way, the same (the mainstream loves symmetry) is true for deflation. Yes it may cause some problems, but the system returns to full employment, even in the face of contractionary policies (the Greek should not worry about contraction, because markets would produce full employment if they are allowed to work; hence, the need of labor market flexibility). In the long run contractionary policies only would affect prices. In sum, supply and demand would lead to the optimal price and quantity, so if you get off my market (cranky old neoclassical guy would say), and stop expanding demand, there would be no inflation.

The evidence for a natural rate or for a PC is incredibly weak. In order to argue that there is a natural rate, the mainstream has basically suggested that it moves around all the time. So in the 1980s the natural rate was higher (in the US), when the actual unemployment was higher, than in the 1990s (particularly towards the end of the decade), when the actual rate was also lower. The ad hoc nature of the solution is evident. They tell you that the natural (which they measure as an average of the actual) is the attractor of the actual rate, and not the reverse.

The continuous ad hocery of the mainstream is on display now too. This is evident in discussion about the fears of inflation in the US, according to which the tripling of the monetary base would lead to hyperinflation (Krugman criticizes that here, and in several other places). Inflation does not take place, but it must be that expectations of inflation are low.

Also, it is evident in the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and other international institutions (since last year at least) arguments for fiscal and monetary contraction in the periphery (which is still growing faster than the center). The IMF believes fiscal expansion is no longer needed since “private demand has, for the most part, taken the baton” (IMF, 2011: xv). Moreover, the BIS argues that inflation is presently the main risk in an otherwise recovering world economy, and therefore suggests “policy [interest] rates should rise globally” (BIS, 2011: xii). According to this view then, if demand is controlled then prices would stop growing fast, and inflation would be under control.

Brazil actually did that last year, that is, fiscal contraction (with some monetary easing, but from a very tight stance, since it still maintains very high real interest rates). Output decelerated from 7.6% growth in 2010 to a mere 2.7% growth last year. A reduction of almost 5%. Did inflation then fell significantly as it should according to the mainstream? The Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas increased from 6.24% to 6.36% in the same period, that is, it was almost constant. Something similar took place in Argentina between 2008 and 2009, when output decelerated around 10% (from high growth to negative growth), and inflation remained at high levels (fell perhaps around 6% or so, in an year that commodity prices collapsed). The mainstream argument is that the policies were not credible and as a result inflation expectations remained high.

In other words, it is not that the theory does not work, even though facts show that their predictions are false. It's a problem of the complexity of the phenomenon, and the need to account for expectations (anything can enter here, and no hypothesis can be tested if you take this seriously).

A simpler solution would be to admit that prices have little to do with demand (at most weaker demand and lower employment reduce the bargaining power of workers and reduce wage resistance). In other words, get rid of the notion of natural rate of unemployment and of a PC for which there is no reliable evidence (as should be done by any serious scientist). The contractions demanded by the IMF and the BIS led to recession (they affect quantities), and prices in Brazil did not fall because costs (which include imported goods and wages) did not fall. No need to suggest that expectations are responsible for inflation not falling. [Keen on his debate with Krugman has also referred to these subterfuges to keep theory in the face of lacking evidence; epicycles if you will]. By the way, expectations have been traditionally a way to argue that anything can happen, and allow theories that are not consistent with facts to get away with the incoherence. But I'll let that for another post.

References:

BIS (2011). 81st Annual Report. Basel, Bank for International Settlements, June.

IMF (2011). World Economic Outlook. Washington, DC, April.

Gravitation, Full Cost Pricing and Prices of Production

Franklin Serrano (Guest blogger)

Most Sraffians understand that gravitation of market prices to normal prices is much quicker than the slower, but inevitable, adaptation of capacity to demand. But other eminent Sraffians have made some confusion by wrongly identifying classical prices of production with full cost pricing.

Classical prices of production are the centre of gravitation for market prices and are determined by the costs of the dominant techniques (at the level of normal utilization of fixed capital) and the state of distribution. It is a general theory of the structural determinants and limits for the trend of market prices in all types of markets. In spite of the similar name it has little or nothing to do with “normal cost” or full cost pricing which is a generalization of the descriptions given by some firms as to how they actually calculate their own prices based on a markup over their own costs (not those of the dominant technique).

First of all, there is obvious fact that the theory of prices of production was developed in a historical period in which such these pricing rules simply did not exist (see Hicks’ Market Theory of Money, 1989). And prices of production can still explain, in my view, the structural or trend element even in markets with highly flexible prices subject to wild short run fluctuations and rampant speculation, as in the so-called “commodity” markets (in Garegnani’s comment on Asimakopulos he explicitly mentions the importance of explaining the trend of the relative price of copper even though “at any one time copper prices are 50% or more above or below trend”)

Second, even in the so called fix price markets, were firms set the prices of their products directly, the full or "normal cost" that particular firms use to calculate their own price is the actual cost of these particular firms and the markup these particular firms think they can add to prices without trouble. These calculations generate actual market prices or (if stylized enough to have some generality short run theoretical prices) that are not unique even for a single market as the full cost prices can be different for different firms. These prices differ from prices of production because they refer to the actual costs of some firms and not the costs of the dominant technique available. For that particular product that determines a single price of production for that market.

The way prices of production may regulate the full cost prices of firms is by getting them in trouble whenever their actual costs plus their desired markups are too high relative to the costs (including normal profits) of the dominant technique, thereby attracting new entrants or cause some rival firms inside that market not to follow price rises that are due to increase in costs particular to that firm or “excessive” desired markups of these firms.

Professors Fred Lee and Marc Lavoie are both absolutely right and some Sraffians wrong in saying that full cost pricing is NOT the same thing as the classical theory of prices of production. Where I think they are definitely wrong is in thinking that classical prices of production are thus irrelevant for market forms in which firms follow such rules. For, through the power of actual or potential competition, the classical prices of production are the centers of gravitation that regulate even the trend of the prices of firms that practice full cost pricing. The closest analogy between classical prices of production and the industrial organization literature is thus the concept that Sylos-Labini called “limit” prices.

So market prices in both fix and flex price markets gravitate, towards or around classical prices of production. Any theory of full cost pricing can at best be a particular theory of short run price behavior of some firms in particular types of markets. There are old papers by James Clifton that started this confusion many years ago in Contributions to Political Economy and the Cambridge Journal of Economics. It is about time we stop confusing ourselves and our post Keynesian friends on this issue.

References:

Lavoie, M. (2003), “Kaleckian Effective Demand and Sraffian Normal Prices: Towards a reconciliation,” Review of Political Economy, 15(1) available here.

Lee, F. and T-H. Jo (2011) “Social Surplus Approach and Heterodox Economics,” Journal of Economic Issues, 45(4) available here.

Garegnani, P. (1988), “Actual and Normal Magnitudes: A Comment on Asimakopulos,” Political Economy, republished in Essays on Piero Sraffa: Critical Perspectives on the Revival of Classical Theory, Routledge, 1990.

Sraffian economics vs. Post Keynesian methodology

A very nice debate on the nature of heterodox economics took place yesterday in a heterodox conference in Buenos Aires. Sergio Cesaratto and Marc Lavoie (depicted above during the interval) presented alternative views which, in spite of some important differences, agreed that Sraffian economics is part of the broadly defined heterodox Keynesian camp (or Post Keynesian if one prefers the term). The question of the relation of Sraffians, and more broadly all of those that believe in the importance of the old classical political economy school (from Petty to Marx, including Quesnay, Smith and Ricardo), with non neoclassical Keynesians, that is, those that believe that unemployment does not result from some rigidity or imperfection (be that of the price, wage or interest rate), has been difficult to say the least.

Marc presented first. A version of the paper is here. Taking aside obvious confusions, and sloppy scholarship of the type that suggests that Sraffians accept Say’s Law, because in the determination of normal prices quantities are taken as given (the fact that those quantities are determined by demand in accumulation theory is, apparently, not understood by these critics), the main line of critique of Sraffians comes from what Marc refers to as Post Keynesian methodologists. For him, “the influence of methodologists ... felt through the study group around Tony Lawson at Cambridge ... that [argues that] proper economics should be based on critical or transcendental realism and ‘open’ systems” and that has led to an “‘open systems’ criterion to judge whether a model can be given a post-Keynesian stamp of approval” (Lavoie, pp. 6-7).

Marc correctly dismisses this supposition that from a methodological point of view the Sraffian approach is limited to closed models. As he clearly notes the Sraffian price equations require that one distributive variable (real wages or rate of profits) are determined exogenously outside of the system by historical and institutional circumstances, which by definition makes it an open system, that is, one in which there is an exchange with its environment. Marc, in fact, suggests that the strong case for a Sraffian-Keynesian interaction is based on the fact that the determination of the rate of profit by the exogenous short term rate of interest set by the central bank provides an obvious link to Post Keynesian endogenous money literature (Pivetti and Panico’s work in that area, among others, shows that Sraffians do have a lot to say about money too, by the way).

Marc notes that the main reason, however, why Post Keynesians reject the Sraffian approach is there is “little enthusiasm for any notion of long-period ‘prices of production’ as centers of gravity towards which short-period or market prices are supposed to tend” (p. 14). However, as Marc suggests there is little difference between prices of production and full cost pricing. Full cost pricing, in my view, should be connected to the Oxford Economists Research Group (particularly P.W.S. Andrews, a tradition that through Andrews’s disciple Wynne Godley influenced Cambridge Keynesians). In other words, I see full cost pricing as compatible with the normal prices in Sraffa, both being determined by a mark up, which represents the social conflicts that allow one class to subtract surplus from another, over costs, which are determined by the technical conditions of production.

My main disagreement with Marc’s exposition, then, is related to his argument that “if one wishes to connect Sraffian economics with the other strands of post-Keynesian economics, one needs to examine production prices in a different light, not as long-run or long-period centers of gravity to which market prices tend” (p. 15). This is also complicated by the incorrect notion that gravitation requires the use of marginalist principles in order to obtain that market prices converge to normal long term prices, which is not the case [I’ll leave the details of that for another post though]. It seems to me that Marc believes somehow that full cost prices are somehow not fully adjusted prices, and that firms do not use their normal costs rather than their short run costs when computing prices.

Sergio counter presentation (not available, but you can check some of his extensive publications here), was narrower in scope, and dealt with the difference between certain Post Keynesian growth models (in particular the so-called Neo Kaleckian school) and Sraffians (he also distinguished among certain Sraffian groups). I should note that Cesaratto agreed with Marc in his rejection of the critique of the so-called Post Keynesian methodologists, and suggested that their lack of understanding of the capital debates and its consequences, reduces the significance of their views. He correctly points out that the capital debates produced the only occasion that forced neoclassical economics to openly recognize its flaws, and, I would add, led to a significant change in the way they do economics, forcing the change in the notion of equilibrium and the development of disaggregated intertemporal short term models (i.e. without a uniform rate of profit, something first noted by Piero Garegnani).

Sergio notes that when dealing with models of accumulation there are three features that most heterodox groups would want to incorporate in their models, namely: (A) the Classical (or in general exogenously given) income distribution, (B) the Keynesian Hypothesis of an investment rate independent from an exogenously given rate of savings, and (C) normal accumulation paths, with the traditional corollary of a long run normal degree of capacity utilisation. Between these three features one obtains what Sergio refers to as the Magical Accumulation triangle.

Neo Kaleckian (NK) models (some of Marc’s models, particularly in his Foundations of Post Keynesian Economic Analysis are of this type, but not the ones in his book with Wynne Godley) tend to assume A and B, but not C. The absence of the notion of normal (or fully adjusted) positions, as we saw above with regards to prices, is the main difference between the NKs and what Sergio calls the supermultiplier Sraffians (which have A, B and C). The supermultiplier models (which are in a sense Kaldorian, on Kaldor and Sraffa see this paper) implies that long term capacity output (not optimal in the sense of full employment) is determined by the exogenous components of demand, and investment is derived demand (as noted by Sergio the key contribution here is Franklin Serrano’s PhD thesis).

Here it is important to note why long term normal positions are important. It has little to do with a belief that economic systems are stable and tend to optimal levels, since the normal positions are tendencies, and are, generally, below full capacity, and crisis are the norm. Normal positions are important because they show that the regular functioning of capitalist economies does not produce efficient allocation of resources. Without suggesting that those that deny the relevance of long term positions are imperfectionists in the same sense that neoclassical authors that believe that an accumulation path below full employment is due to price, wage or interest rate rigidities, the argument still relies on an inability of capacity to adjust fully to the exogenous growth of the autonomous components of demand. The question then is why would a business not invest enough to keep its capacity growing in line with the growth of its demand? Here, I believe, lies the fundamental difference between classical-Keynesians (or supermultiplier Sraffians) and Neo Kaleckians.

By the way, as I noted before in the blog, the use of the term Kaleckians for the NKs is a bit of a misnomer, since the models derive really from Joan Robinson (and as noted by Sergio, Harrod and Steindl too). In part, I think, for her role in the rejection of normal positions and her views on history versus equilibrium, Sergio suggested that Robinson played a negative role in these debates.

There are several other things to discuss about this topic (the role of Joan Robinson among the important ones), brought about by the interesting, controversial, but very friendly debate between Marc Lavoie and Sergio Cesaratto which I’ll leave for other posts.

More on income distribution and growth (wonskish)

Kaldor and Kalecki

A few years back Sam Bowles presented a paper (Kudunomics: Property rights for the information-based economy) at the University of Utah. At dinner he reaffirmed his conviction that Arrow-Debreu General Equilibrium (GE) is compatible with different kinds of behavior and can be a force for progressive economics. Conventional marginalist theory suggests that income distribution is the result of relative scarcities, and, as a result, real wages should equal the marginal product of labor, i.e. labor productivity. When asked how he squares the belief in GE with the fact that wages in the US do NOT follow productivity since the 1970s, Bowles seemed puzzled. And the relation of income distribution and growth remains puzzling for the mainstream and its sycophants.

In the heterodox camp, the discussion has been centered, for the most part, between the so-called Kaleckian and Kaldorian models. First, I should note that from a history of ideas point, the Kaleckian name is a misnomer. Kalecki’s models where about the interaction of multiplier and accelerator, with shocks and lags, to produce fluctuations. In the various forms of his accelerator equation Kalecki included a trend, producing fluctuations around a trend. The so-called Kaleckian models derive from Harrod and Joan Robinson’s attempts to extent Keynes’ Principle of Effective Demand (PED) to the long run.

The PED says that an increase in investment is matched by an exact increase in savings, and that the level of income is the main adjusting variable (rather than the interest rate as in the Loanable Theory of Funds). The Kaleckian models basically normalize the IS identity by the capital stock, assume (in the extreme case) that the propensity to save out of wages is zero, and a propensity to save out of profits (s) between zero and one, and in Keynesian fashion have investment determine savings. The difference with the short-run story is that now accumulation (investment-to-capital ratio) determines income distribution (the rate of profits), a result often referred to as the Cambridge equation.

The various incarnations of the Kaleckian models are defined by the way the investment function is specified. For example, in the influential paper by Bhaduri and Marglin (B-M) (subscription required) they argue that investment and savings are functions of the profit share (h) and capacity utilization (z). In other words:

I(h, z) = shz

Solving for z and deriving with respect to h we have:

dz/dh = (Ih – sz)/(sh – Iz)

Where Ih is the response of investment to profitability and Iz to capacity utilization. Assuming stability, that is, that savings respond to profitability more than investment to capacity utilization and the denominator is positive, the sign of the equation depends on the numerator. If investment is strongly responsive to profitability (Ih > sz), then the system is profit-led (exhilarationist in B-M terms). If not we have the wage-led (stagnationist) regime.

As I suggested in my previous post, there are some theoretical problems with the type of model used to argue that the US economy is profit-led, besides the empirical ones alluded before. The independent investment function suggests that capacity utilization affects capital formation, if capacity is low there is more investment, and vice versa when z is high. In other words, firms would try to adjust capacity to demand. If that is the case you would expect that a normal relation between capacity and demand would be established in the long run (in the neoclassical view demand adjusts to capacity; that’s Say’s Law), which could be seen as the relatively stable output-to-capital ratio over the whole period for the US, in my previous post.

If that is the case, investment is determined by the adjustment of capacity to exogenous demand in order to reach the normal capacity utilization, and it is essentially derived demand (the accelerator principle). It is not instrumental in determining the normal level of capacity utilization, which must be determined by the exogenous components of demand. This is the basis of the supermultiplier models, first developed by Hicks, and then by Nicholas Kaldor, and referred to as Kaldorian in the heterodox literature (for more on that see this paper).

That is the essential difference between the Kaleckian and Kaldorian models, whether investment is partially autonomous and determined by profitability or it is derived demand. Of course income distribution in Kaldorian models might have ambiguous effects on growth, but firms would not investment more if profits went up, if there is no increase in demand. In this sense, worsening income distribution might lead to higher growth if demand keeps going for some reason (say more private debt stimulates consumption; or stimulates the consumption of a higher income group). But in general profit-led growth that stimulates investment, as in the M-B framework seems hard to explain from a theoretical point of view. Hence, the confusion it generates empirically (e.g. in the case of the US the notion that a debt-led consumption boom is a profit-led story).

PS: The typical Kaldorian model is based on Thirlwall's work, but the book by Bortis and Serrano's dissertation (or his paper; subscription required) are essential readings.