Confusion and the Failure of Marginalism

In my last post I briefly discussed the Austrian approach. One interesting point, discussed in more detail in the comments, is that several Austrians do not understand that they are neoclassical. Note that the core of neoclassical economics is the determination of prices, initially at least it was long-term prices, by the interaction of supply and demand.

I find a bit surprised that several neoclassical or marginalist economists do not understand the basics of their own theory. This confusion is compounded by the fact that several heterodox economists do not understand it either, and tend to be confused, as a result, on how they depart (when they do) from the mainstream.

I'll give you an example. If you think that prices (long-term normal prices, for those that think that these are analytically important) are determined by supply and demand, then you basically must believe that (with the exception of rigidities and other imperfections) full employment is the natural tendency of the system. Note that if prices are determined by supply and demand, the real wage in the long run would be determined by the supply and demand in that market, and given productivity and preferences you get full employment at the equilibrium real wage.

The failure of some mainstream and heterodox economists to understand the neoclassical approach, in my view, stems from the collapse of the marginalist project after the capital debates (not of its dominance, but the ability to provide coherent responses to the critics). Robert Vienneau has a very good post on the failure of neoclassical economics. Worth reading.

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 environmentalism

It is well known that the surplus approach authors dealt with exhaustible resources when discussing land and rent. The so-called Ricardian theory of rent, discovered by West and Malthus, has important implications for income distribution as it is well known. Landlords benefited from protection, which forced the use of scarce land, and led to higher rents (and for a given output and a fixed wage at subsistence) and lower profits. Thus, the existence of an exhaustible resource led to a transfer from the dynamic capitalists to the backward landlords.

The rent paid for the extensive use of land of different quality is significantly different than the intensive case of marginalist (neoclassical) theory. Marx was critical of certain aspects of the Ricardian theory of rent. In particular, he argued that 'absolute rent' would arise even if there were no differences in the levels of land productivity, if owners had a monopoly power over the natural resource. In this sense, the nature of rent is highly dependent on the historical contingencies and institutional arrangements that make one social group or class able to obtain greater bargaining power.

One important conclusion from this approach is that ownership and taxation of natural resources is crucial to determine which groups win or loose with the continuous use of exhaustible resources. Nationalization of natural resources not only might provide a situation in which the benefits and costs of extraction are shared more equitably, but also furnish the funds for the investment needed to promote alternative technologies. Below some readings that might be useful.

Suggested readings:

Bidard and Erreygers (2001), The Corn-Guano model, Metroeconomica 52(3), 243-53.

Burkett (2006), Marxism and Ecological Economics, Leiden, Brill.

Parrinello (2001), The price of exhaustible resources, Metroeconomica 52(3), pp. 301-15 (subscription required).

Ravagnani (ND), Classical Theory and Exhaustible Natural Resources, processed.