From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 08:40:11 EST
Re Rakesh's [8505]: > > 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. The previous discussion, as I recall, centered around what would constitute a refutation. The meaning of repudiation is quite different, though, from the meaning of refutation. In the abstract that you posted, Okishio did not repudiate the Okishio Theorem -- rather, he reaffirmed his belief in it within the context of comparative statics. > 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. Yes, this is an issue that could be discussed. E.g. one could ask whether a result from comparative statics that can't be extended to dynamic analysis has any meaning, heuristically or otherwise, for the study of capitalism. That question is related to one's perspective on the 'rules' of model-building or abstraction. > > 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. Right. It doesn't have to. Even if Okishio thought that the Okishio Theorem was a comparative statics result, any other author can attempt (successfully or not) to show that the Theorem holds within a non-linear context. The fate of a theorem, once developed, is no longer necessarily or exclusively in the hands of its originator. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST