> As I have indicated in my asnwer to Juriaan, market structure is a
concept
> which foreign to marxian (and classical) framework of analysis. The
> revelant concept for marxian analysis is the concrete conditions of
> production and circulation of commodities. These conditions (largely)
> determines the degree of mobility of capital. It is clear also that
> governamental regulations, the degree of efficiency of the financial
> markets and the mobility of labor power across industies and regions are
> also important determinant of capital mobility. But these limitations to
> capital mobility should not be seen, from the standpoint of marxian
> analysis, as market structure variables.
While agreeing with Eduardo's substantive argument, whether or not "market
structure" is important for marxist analysis will depend on what you take
"market structure" to mean, what you wish to explain, and who you are
arguing with. If you mean by it the structure of demand for
use-values, then it seems to me that it does have a role to play in Marxist
analysis.
This need not of course imply any commitment to some Keynesian
analysis of "aggregate demand", let alone neo-classical notions such
as "consumer sovereignity". It means only that the inflow and outflow
of capitals as between sectors, and the redistribution of economic
resources that implies,
"must be congruent with the structure of demand for use-values determined
by capitalism" (as Ernest Mandel phrases it in his discussion of the limits
of monopoly - Late Capitalism, English edition, p. 528). I would say this
is a point of some importance in the analysis and critique of actual
monopolistic behaviour.
Regards
Jurriaan. >