From: Cyrus Bina (binac@MORRIS.UMN.EDU)
Date: Mon Jan 16 2006 - 14:34:15 EST
Dear All; This is indeed a great loss for the political economy as a whole and certainly for many of us who appreciate Paolo Sylos Labini's pioneering work on competition and monopoly. Cyrus glevy@PRATT.EDU wrote: >Another 2 items from the Heterodox Economics Newsletter-21 > >=========================================================== > > > > Paolo Sylos Labini > > Dear friends, > I am writing to give you the sad news that Paolo Sylos Labini passed >away yesterday in Rome, after a short illness. > I am sure you remember him as a great economist, a fighter of many >causes and a kind and generous person. > With kind regards, > Cristina > Prof. Maria Cristina Marcuzzo > Direttore del Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche > > Paolo Sylos Labini: un economista eretico? > La notizia della morte di Paolo Sylos Labini non può che rattristare >tutti coloro che ne apprezzavano le capacità teoriche, scientifiche, >espositive e la grandissima verve polemica, negli ultimi anni >rivolta particolarmente contro Berlusconi (si veda ad esempio >l'interessante e per certi aspetti divertente, "Un paese a civiltà >limitata", libro-intervista pubblicato nel 2001 per i tipi di >Laterza). > Del resto sono ancora oggi molto importanti i suoi studi sulle >tendenze oligopolistiche del capitalismo, sui rapporti tra sviluppo >e progresso tecnico, sui ceti medi; volumi ricchi di osservazioni >interessanti e di senso storico e sociologico. Si può ritenere che >Sylos Labini sia stato dopo Pareto il primo economista italiano a >occuparsi seriamente dell' evoluzione delle classi medie. > Quel che però non convince, e basta dare un'occhiata ai >"coccodrilli" apparsi ieri sui giornali, è la pretesa di >considerarlo un eretico. Su questo giudizio non si può essere >d'accordo. Perché? > In primo luogo, Sylos Labini fu allievo negli Stati Uniti di >Schumpeter, grande e tragico profeta (ma anche apologeta) del >capitalismo. Un'esperienza che lasciò su di lui segni indelebili. >Infatti, fin dai primi suoi lavori (cfr. la voce "investimenti", nel >"Dizionario di economia" a cura di Napoleoni - 1956, pp. 765-793), >Sylos Labini, sulla scia di Schumpeter, non si è mai stancato di >ripetere che il capitalismo, pur con le sue manchevolezze >(burocratizzazioni, oligopoli, rendite parassitarie) resta sempre il >migliore dei mondi possibili: l'unico scenario economico capace di >favorire gli investimenti e dunque di promuovere lo sviluppo umano >nella democrazia. > In secondo luogo, anche l'importanza che nella sua opera ha assunto >l'innovazione teconologica "creatrice" in rapporto allo sviluppo non >solo sociale ma produttivo, testimonia quanto l'interpretazione >schumpeteriana del capitalismo, come forza creatrice e distruttrice >al tempo stesso, abbia pesato sullo sviluppo del suo pensiero. > In terzo luogo, il problema dell' innovazione resta in lui legato, >come del resto anche in Schumpeter, a quello della funzione >imprenditoriale. Di qui la sua critica alle forme di imprenditoria >semipubblica, parassitarie e nemiche delle regole di mercato, che >secondo l'economista italiano, sono splendidamente illustrate, e per >sempre racchiuse, nella "Ricchezza delle Nazioni" di Adam Smith. > In quarto luogo, il rapporto Sylos Labini-Marx è piuttosto >controverso. L'economista italiano ne sempre ammirato più la >sociologia che l'economia (il collegamento tra economia capitalista >e classi sociali), ma di Marx non ha mai condiviso due tesi: quella >sulla caduta del saggio di profitto e quella sull' impoverimento >bipolare delle classi sociali. > Ora, proprio per queste ragioni (sostanzialmente: il muoversi >teoricamente all'interno della visione schumpeteriana del >capitalismo), Paolo Sylos Labini non può essere considerato un >eretico. O comunque non nel senso che oggi viene dato a questo >termine. Detto in breve Sylos Labini è per la "crescita" e non per >la "decrescita". Tutta la sua opera è un elogio dell' innovazione >produttiva e dello sviluppo economico indefinto, come solo strumento >per redistribuire la ricchezza. > Questo spiega, ma è solo una curiosità, perché la bibbia >dell'economia eterodossa il "Biographical Dictionary of Dissenting >Economists" (Elgar 1992, 2000 www.e-elgar.com) non gli abbia >dedicato alcuna voce. > Dispiace ma è così. > > By Carlo Gambescia > > On behalf of ESHET, I send an obituary of Paolo Sylos Labini, >elected as Honorary Member of the society. Daniele Besomi > > Paolo Sylos Labini passed away on December 7th, 2005, aged 85. >Emeritus Professor at the University La Sapienza (Rome) and one of >the most eminent economists in the world, he was known for his >seminal theory of oligopoly and many other contributions. His book >Oligopolio e progresso tecnico (1956) is a milestone in the history >of economics. He has left us many important studies about economic >development and its determinants, nearly all of them translated into >English. His last book, published a few months ago, goes back to his >preferred theme of development and technical progress and to his >preferred approach: the history of economics as a way to understand >present problems. Its title is: Torniamo ai classici. Produttivite >del lavoro, progresso tecnico e sviluppo economico, Roma-Bari: >Laterza, 2005 (Let's go back to the Classics. Labour productivity, >technical progress and economic development). > > After graduation, Sylos Labini studied at Harvard, with Joseph >Schumpeter, and in Cambridge (UK); he was member of some of the most >prestigious academies and scientific associations, in Italy (among >which the Accademia dei Lincei ) and in the world (among which the >American Economic Association). He also was awarded many prestigious >scientific prizes, and was repeatedly called to advise the Italian >government and other policy institutions. > > At the last ESHET Conference, in Stirling, the Council awarded him >the title of Honorary Member, with the following motivation:"Sylos >Labini is an eminent scholar of economics always interested in the >history of economics. His studies on oligopolistic markets, on >development and underdevelopment, and on social classes cannot be >really detached from his interests in the Classical school, in the >value theory, in the economics of underdevelopment and especially in >Adam Smith�s thought. Beside giving us a deep insight in these >problems, Sylos Labini has thought us a scientific approach free >from ideologies, independent but also socially engaged." > > When I officially informed him of the award, his reaction was:"I am >really pleased about this title of Honorary Member of ESHET. Please >convey to the Council and the Executive Committee my feelings of >real happiness. It will be a great pleasure for me to attend the >Dinner in Porto, provided that I am still around!" (my translation >from Italian). > Probably he felt his end near, but hinted at it with much sobriety. >He was disenchanted with human nature and social injustice, and >nevertheless passionately fought for social development and justice >at a scientific and a civic level. In times dominated by ideologies, >even in economics, he stood for an empirical approach, looking for >rational ways to promote economic development and defending the >often neglected role of technical progress. He did not like grand >theories about human nature. He preferred to "measure" factors of >production and cultural attitudes, without losing sight of the >social and moral values. This is how he repeatedly approached issues >like social classes in Italy, underdevelopment, industrial relations >and the development of Southern Italy. > > The language of his research was simple and straightforward; the >concepts were neat and clear, free from any rhetoric. Thanks to his >disinterested commitment to science and to society, Paolo Sylos >Labini was exceptionally able to stir human sympathy. His life is a >remarkable example of how scientific engagement and civic commitment >can be combined without prejudicing their reciprocal independence. > > Cosimo Perrotta > >================================================================== > > > > > Rudolf Meidner, 1914 - 2005: A Visonary Pragmatist > > By ROBIN BLACKBURN > > Rudolf Meidner, chief economist of the LO, Sweden's largest trade >union federation, and an immensely practical socialist visionary, >died in December. If Meidner had not been a Swedish citizen, and >still a controversial figure at the age of 91, he would very likely >have been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. Meidner was, after >all, the co-architect -- with Gosta Rehn -- of the Swedish welfare >state, an achievement which, by itself, would have merited such a >nomination. > Those responsible for this prize tend to prefer theory to policy but >it should be clear to everyone that the Rehn/Meidner model was based >on its own distinctive theoretical insights and that policy-oriented >economics is anyway deserving of recognition. > > Building on Keynes and James Meade, the two men understood that >welfare and corporate finance needed to be thought through together >if high employment levels were to be maintained and inflation >avoided. > Remarkably enough, their model did for long succeed in delivering on >both fronts -- something which, sadly, cannot be said about other >European welfare states, where monetary stability was achieved at >the expense of a long and debilitating toleration of high levels of >unemployment, with younger workers, older workers and ethnic >minorities the worst affected. > > From the time of the introduction of the second pension system, the >ATP, in 1959 the 'Swedish home' could accumulate a trust fund so >that in future asset income as well as current taxes could be drawn >on to pay ATP entitlements. Continental European pension systems >were more purely reliant on pay-as-you-go. The famous >wage-bargaining round was another device which Rehn and Meidner >integrated into their model, helping it to avoid the twin perils of >hyperinflation and persistent, high joblessness. Meidner's position >as the chief economist of the LO, the main trade union federation, >must have been important in promoting a species of solidaristic >wage-bargaining in which the fruits of productivity advances were >widely shared. In recent years the Netherlands has had good results >with a similar approach. > > Another crucial mechanism for maintaining macro-economic balance in >the Rehn/Meidner model was the investment reserve. Whereas >Anglo-Saxon companies are encouraged to take 'contribution holidays' >-- and put nothing into their pension and health-care funds during >upswings of the business cycle -- Swedish corporations were >encouraged to stow operating profits in special tax-exempt reserves. >More generally the Swedish welfare state guaranteed secondary >pensions and health care to all citizens, instead of offering >private corporations tax incentives to take on the task of supplying >social insurance to their own workers. The latter formula -- >Anglo-Saxon style corporate welfare -- has proved to be a trap for >employees, depriving them of their promised benefits and threatening >their jobs as once-famous companies plunge into bankruptcy and >entire industries -- steel, airlines, auto and telecoms -- are >ravaged by the burden of pension and health entitlements. The >corporate pensions crunch destroys good jobs and their replacement >by low-wage, insecure service employment -- MacJobs-- is scant >compensation. > > I am aware that Sweden's welfare state and social market economy >faced its own near-collapse in the early 1990s and that the >Rehn/Meidner model did not emerge unscathed. This crisis was deemed >to reflect badly on the model though both Rehn and Meidner had >stepped down long before, and their advice had anyway not been >heeded. Looking back over three or four decades, there remains >something very distinctive about the Swedish achievement, something >which owes much to the original model. Swedish welfare remains >comparatively generous and Swedish unemployment only a little over a >half of the core EU rate. Swedish parents have access to better >child-care, and Swedish women have better-paying and more flexible >jobs than are to be found in other advanced countries. > > Meidner's achievement goes beyond his role, important as that was, >in helping to set up the 'Swedish home'. He saw that an ageing and >learning society would require social expenditure on a scale >unprecedented in peacetime (one could easily add such challenges as >ecological degradation and climate change). Meidner came to believe >in the need to establish strategic social funds -- 'wage-earner >funds' - to be financed by a share levy. The huge controversy which >was provoked by this proposal generated more heat than light. > > The Social Democratic party leadership did not share Meidner's >vision and did a poor job of presenting it to the Swedish people. >Meidner's plan was very radical and they were not. With hindsight >there were aspects of the plan that needed adjustment but those made >by the SAPD went in the wrong direction. Having, as they saw it, >burnt their fingers, the Social Democratic leaders began to see >Meidner as an embarrassment, or as a relic of a by-gone age. He was >consigned to the shadows and no part of his thinking was more >disdained than the 'wage-earner funds'. > > Yet financing pensions, research and education becomes increasingly >difficult throughout the OECD countries. Does it really make sense >to pay for public programmes only out of current tax revenues and >not to pre-fund them, or to introduce even the most modest tax on >shareholding wealth. It is a striking fact that while most >governments are happy to tax the homes people live in, they all >refuse to have any direct levy on share-holding wealth or to allow >-- as Meidner boldly imagined -- social funds to exercise control >over the large corporations. > > Increasingly, it seems, we live in a society like the French Ancièn >Regime before 1789. Then the wealth of the feudal aristocracy was >largely exempt from tax; now it is the holdings of the corporate >millionaires and billionaires that escape taxation. Other signs >reminiscent of the age of Louis XVI include the spirit of 'après >nous le deluge', the reliance on lotteries, and the emergence of >modern variants of 'tax farming' -- for example, laws which oblige >citizens to pay their taxes (pension contributions) to commercial >fund managers rather than to an accountable public body. But the >taboo on effective taxation of corporate wealth is the most crucial >sign of the reign of privilege. > > Rudolf Meidner's share levy, unlike so many modern taxes, was >extraordinarily difficult to evade. On the other hand it was not at >all punitive. Unlike traditional corporate taxation, it did not >subtract from the cash-flow or resources which the enterprise needed >for investment. It diluted shareholder wealth without weakening the >corporation as a productive concern. According to the original plan >every company with more than fifty employees was obliged to issue >new shares every year equivalent to 20 per cent of its profits. The >newly issued shares -- which could not be sold -- were to be given >to the network of 'wage earner funds', representing workplaces and >local authorities. The latter would hold the shares, and reinvest >the income they yielded from dividends, in order to finance future >social expenditure. As the wage earner funds grew they would be able >to play an increasing part in directing policy in the corporations >which they owned. > > The idea that workers ands citizens should tame the corporations by >establishing control of financial instruments was an echo of ideas >that Meidner imbibed in his youth from the debates of German and >Austrian Marxian economists like Rudolf Hilferding and Karl Polanyi. > For Meidner was not born in Sweden but arrived there as a refugee in >1938. > > Meidner's visionary scheme was warmly welcomed by many trade unions >and by members of the Social Democratic party but strongly opposed >by the press and by the '20 families' who then dominated the >country's large corporations. It was adopted by the LO in 1976 and, >much more cautiously, by the Social Democrats a couple of years >later. > Opponents of the scheme, claimed that it would aggrandize the trade >unions who would dominate the 'wage-earner funds'. It was also >alleged that the scheme unfairly favoured employees in the private >sector since they were to be the first to receive shares from the >levy. Scare campaigns persuaded the governing Social Democratic not >simply to reduce the size of the levy -- 10 per cent of profits >would have been a perfectly good starting point -- but to abandon >the principle of the levy itself. Likewise they did not improve the >funds' accountability but instead prevented them from having any say >in corporate policy. By > 1992 even the scaled-down social funds owned 7 per cent of the >Swedish stock market but, to prevent them getting any larger, were >wound up by the Conservatives in 1992 and the proceeds used to >finance a string of scientific research institutes. So Meidner's >plan has yet to be properly tried, though even in its diluted form >the social funds helped to propel Sweden to the forefront of the >knowledge-based economy. > > Rudolph Meidner, as a radical social democrat, an egalitarian and an >organic intellectual of the labour movement was committed to a >'third way' that was actually the antithesis of the doctrine of that >name subsequently espoused by Tony Blair. Were Blair is vague and >rhetorical, Meidner was precise and institutionally specific. Where >Blair encourages the privatization and commodification of >everything, Meidner was dedicated to the 'de-commodification' of >welfare, education and research. And his proposal for a network of >regional funds broke with the traditional socialist practice of >concentrating more power in the central state. > > It is now a long time since governments of the Left have dared to >tried to tame the corporations and ask whether the owners of the >large corporations might be obliged to contribute more to the wider >society, without which their own profits would be impossible. The >most far-sighted attempt to think through the types of new finance >that would be needed to guarantee generous social provision remains >that of Rudolf Meidner and this will be his legacy to the 21st >century. > > Robin Blackburn is Visiting Distinguished Professor at the New >School for Social Resaerch in New York and professor of sociology at >the University of Essex, UK. He is the author of Banking on Death: >the History and Future of Pensions > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 17 2006 - 00:00:01 EST