Paul B and others: In the recent threads on "faux frais, armaments, and value" and related issues we have (again) been discussing unproductive labor. In this connection I have a specific question: what specific objections do others have to the definitions of productive and unproductive labor made by (listmember) Anwar Shaikh and E. Ahmet Tonak in _Measuring the Wealth of Nations_ (Cambridge University Press, 1994)? At the IWGVT mini-conference Alan was asked about how he would measure productive and unproductive labor if he was to extend his recent empirical work to include that subject. Alan answered that he would use Shaikh/ Tonak. Similarly, others on this list in the past (including Paul Z if I recall correctly) have endorsed this method for calculating and measuring productive and unproductive labor. So, I think it might be helpful to identify any problems with their definitions and then discuss them. Who knows -- maybe we might find a wide range of agreement. In any event, it's worth talking about, right? After all, measuring productive and unproductive labor has been generally recognized as a crucial aspect of Marxian empirical work. ( A definition offered in the S/T book is: "Productive labor is the production labor employed in capitalist production sectors: agriculture, mining, construction, transportation and public utilities, manufacturing, and productive services (defined as all services except business services, legal services, and private households; see Table E.1 for a full listing of productive services). It excludes nonproduction labor (sales, etc.) employed in the production sectors such as trade or finance. Total productive labor is the sum of the production workers in each production sector. Total unproductive labor is the sum of nonproduction workers in the production sectors and all workers in the nonproduction sectors", p. 295). Agree or disagree? If you disagree, why? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:28 EDT