From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Fri Dec 03 2004 - 08:27:03 EST
There is no time and no causation in Sraffa's original work. Sraffa does not have a "model". His propositions are mathematical or logical in nature. What all different variants of Sraffians have done with it, is a different story altogether. Cheers, ajit sinha --- Ian Wright <iwright@GMAIL.COM> wrote: > Dear Riccardo, Anders etc., > Thanks for taking the time to respond to my > question. I found a review > essay in Review of Political Economy Vol 16 No 2: > "Sraffian research > programmes and unorthodox economics" by T. > Aspromourgos. Quoting: > > "Two possible alternative `closures' of the > distribution system -- via > the accumulation rate or via the rate of interest -- > have also been > systematically pursued, especially the former route. > The essential > basis of the former is that given the equilibrium > equality between > saving and investment, an equality can be postulated > between the > ratios of saving to the value of the capital stock, > and investment to > capital. If the latter ratio could be conceived of > as an independently > determined rate of accumulation, and the former > decomposed into a > distribution-weighted average of saving out of each > functional income > category, in a ratio to capital, then a causation > from accumulation to > distribution could be posited -- the 'Cambridge > Growth Equation' > causation. On the other hand, the essential insight > of the interest > closure approach is that given the equalization of > interest rates and > profit rates (net of compensation for differential > asset > characteristics such as illiquidity and risk), if > profit rates are > free to vary in equilibrium, at least within limits, > and interest can > be independently determined in money markets -- > including, in the > latter determination, central bank behaviour > (monetary policy) -- then > a monetary determination of profit rates, and hence > income > distribution more widely, can be posited. The > absence, so far, of a > more considerable development of this latter > programme is the most > unfortunate omission from the Sraffian project as a > whole -- although > further development of it properly should not amount > to another theory > of profit rate determination, different from the > Cambridge Growth > Equation, but similarly mechanical and indifferent > to the role of > wider social forces. ... So long as only one degree > of freedom is > available for determining distribution, both of > these approaches > cannot be sound. ..." > > The Cabridge Growth Equation causation sounds very > complicated! ... > For what it's worth, the last sentence is another > example of the > fallacy of non-contradiction (positivist habit): it > assumes that there > cannot be multiple mechanisms that simultaneously > function to attain > contradictory ends (e.g., distribution). Anders, I > think it is > important to close the model and not leave > distribution to unmodelled > notions of class conflict, particularly as > empirically it seems that > distribution is pretty much constant, but it is > technology that > changes over time (which is the inverse of the > Sraffian model that > assumes fixed technology and investigates the effect > of changing the > distributional variables). > > -Ian. > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EST