From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 05:16:39 EST
At 22:10 -0800 2-12-2003, ajit sinha wrote: >--- mongiovg <mongiovg@STJOHNS.EDU> wrote: >> Well, you can't go wrong with "linear production >> theory." "Surplus approach" >> works if you're talking about Sraffa, Pasinetti and >> Steedman, but doesn't >> really fit for Leontief and I think there is some >> ambiguity as regards von >> Neumann (though Kurz & Salvadori put vN squarely in >> the Sraffian tradition). >_________________________ > >Leontief, and I think Neumann too, assume constant >returns to scale. Sraffa does not. I think all linear >production theory implicitly or explicitly assume >constant returns to scale. Whereever you see a(ij)'s >in linear production equations, you know that CRS is >implicitly assumed. Of course, no such a(ij)'s appear >in Sraffa's equations. So I would think that Sraffa >should not be clubed under 'linear production theory'. >Cheers, ajit sinha >> >> No one to whom the label "neo-Ricardian" is applied >> likes it, so I'd avoid it >> simply on the grounds of good manners. I suspect >> that it is often used by some >> Marxists or critical realists to suggest a certain >> bourgeoise backwardness. >> >> Regards, >> >> Gary >> >> >===== Original Message From Ian Wright >> <ian_paul_wright@HOTMAIL.COM> ===== >> >I would like to use the correct or accepted label >> for the class of economic >> >models associated with Von Neumann, Sraffa, >> Pasinetti, Steedman and >> >others. The common elements I want to characterise >> are: (i) simultaneous >> >solution to a set of technical-production >> constraints, (ii) distribution of >> >a physical, surplus product, (iii) production of >> commodities by means of >> >commodities. >> >Can anyone tell me what is the accepted label for >> this class of models? >> >I've come across labels such as "neo-Ricardian", >> "surplus approach", >> >"linear production theory" and "physical quantities >> approach". Is there a >> >commonly accepted label that the practitioners >> accept? >> > >> >Thanks for any help in advance. >> > > > >-Ian. linear production theory, I fear, would fit a lot of neoclassical models. I agree with Ajit here. I think that neo-Ricardian is fair, though it is disliked by those authors: in fact, all of them, to my knowledge, stress always the strict continuity between Ricardo and Marx. von Neumann: the first to put him in the Classical tradition was Napoleoni in 1963-4 (to my knowledge), it seems that K&S do not acknowledge that, but I am unsure about that. an interesting taxonomy of the 'Sraffian' schools is made by Roncaglia, who distinguishes among 'neoSmithian', 'neoRicardian' and 'neoMarxian' in a little book recently published by Routledge. rb -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Hyman P. Minsky" Università di Bergamo Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it direct +39-035-2052545 secretary +39-035 2052501 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homepage/bellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 04 2003 - 00:00:00 EST