From: rakeshb@stanford.edu
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 03:03:01 EST
Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com in 8499>: > > Okishio did not 'repudiate' what has become known as the > Okishio Theorem (in his _CJE_ 2001 article): rather, he simply > acknowledged that it was a comparative statics result. Oh I don't agree. He did not merely acknowledge that it was a comparative statics result. He questioned what heuristic relevance a result on such basis could have for the study of actual capitalist dynamics. This may not constitute repudiation--many of us must remember previous hair-splitting OPE-L discussion about what this entails-- but there is more critical bite in regards to what has become known as the Okishio Theorem (or at least the claims made on the basis thereof) than you are letting on. Here's the abstract after all: Competition and production prices Nobuo Okishio 2-1-2-1108 Ibukidae Higashi machi, Nishi, Kobe 651-2242, Japan Abstract My theorem, the so-called Okishio theorem, is a comparative statics result. Therefore, it has no realistic meaning if capitalists' competition does not establish a new equilibrium following the introduction of a new production method. Marx firmly believed that a new equilibrium was established. In this paper, we investigate the capitalist process without technical change. If we choose the proper parameters and initial conditions, all profit rates converge to zero, Schumpeter's result. _______________ Of course the idea that new production methods are introduced before a new equilibrium is established seems quite reasonable. It would be important for this list to consider Okishio's article in the context of previous criticism of comparative static methodology, e.g. Ben Fine's, Geert Reuten's, Guglielmo Carchedi's and Alan Freeman's respective criticisms. Frankly, I am surprised this has not been attempted on this list, and my post was meant to be provocative. I don't have my copy of the article with me right now, and I can't download the pdf on this computer; my copy is tucked in my copy OPE-L's Stephen Cullenberg's book on the falling profit rate which while raising several important and profound questions about methodological holism does not deal much with this question of comparative statics. It would be great of course if Steve C himself commented on this piece. > And it has been claimed by Fujimoto and Ranade that the > Okishio Theorem also holds in a non-linear environment: > http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/vwlwww/metroeconomica/1fujimoto.html This article does not seem to comment on the CJE piece. > > Solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST