From: Alejandro Valle Baeza (valle@SERVIDOR.UNAM.MX)
Date: Sun Dec 31 2006 - 20:22:36 EST
Jerry Levy wrote: > > Jerry, Latin-American dependency theory pointed out deteriorating > exchange > > terms during 70's. They did not use value concept at all. I think > that such > > approach is misleading because it ignores productivity (without > value concept > > there are necessary mistakes). > > Alejandro: > > A theory of unequal exchange must posit, at least as a reference point and > special case, the condition of equal exchange. For the same reason, a > theory of dis-equilibrium must posit, at least as a reference point and > special case, a condition of equilibrium. Without such a reference, a > theory has no way of establishing UE and/or dis-equilibrium. I agree with you, however ECLA analyzed changes: after some time certain country needs more merchandises to import a fix amount. It does not mean that it is necessary more value to obtain a certain amount of value embodied in imports. It depends on productivity. > > If one claims that there is unequal exchange then one is also claiming > that there has not been an exchange of equivalents. Yet, how do we > know that there has not been equivalent exchange without a theory of > value ??? You are right. However Dependency theorist were interested not in scientific trues but in political measures to improve Latin- American capitalism. > > A problem with dependency theory was its lack of theoretical rigor, > imo. In a sense, it could be seen as a kind of radical institutionalism. > Yet, without a theory of value it leads one around in circles. After one > posits UE then one must explain how and why there is UE for which > _some_ theory of value is required. Otherwise, one doesn't have a > complete theory -- one is simply asserting that "UE happens". > I think if you scratch dependency theory hard enough then you will > find some propositions of subjective value theory implicitly assumed. > Try scratching, for instance, what they have to say about S and D. > I can't say too much more, though, at this time about that without > dusting-off a number of books. It was clear in non Marxist dependency theorist that they assumed Neoclassical theory. Until I recall LA Marxian dependency theorist (Marini et al) did not analyze UE. Cordialmente Alejandro -- Posgrado Facultad de Economía Av. Universidad 3000 Circuito interior México 04510, DF México Tel. 55-56222148 fax 55-56222158 Página web: http://usuarios.lycos.es/vallebaeza
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 02 2007 - 00:00:05 EST