MR. SRAFFA'S REHABILITATION OF CLASSICAL ECONOMICS1
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9485.1961.tb00155.x |
| Date | 01 June 1961 |
| Author | RONALD L. MEEK |
| Published date | 01 June 1961 |
MR.
SRAFFA’S
REHABILITATlON
OE
CLASSICAL ECONOMICS
I
MR. Sraffa’s important new book,
Productim
of
Commodities
by
Means
of
Commodities,’
is
described in the publisher’s blurb as
‘
a
work of a specialist character, addressed to those interested in pure
economic theory
’.
One should not be intimidated by this, however;
the book
is
a
short one, running to less than 100 pages; the argument
is
on
the whole quite lucid; and the mathematics used is of
a
very
elementary character. Nevertheless, the problems with which the book
deals are from their very nature rather complex and abstract; and
some of Sraffa’s analytical tools and methods are likely to appear
strange to those unversed in the ways
of
Ricardo and Marx. The
present article is an. attempt to summarise Sraffa’s main argument and
to state in simple language just what
I
think he is getting at.
The book can be looked at from various points of view. It can
be
regarded,
if
one pleases, simply as an unorthodox theoretical model
of
a particular type
of
economy, designed to solve the traditional
problem
of
value
in
a new way-in which case it will be judged
purely
on
its own merits. Or it can be regarded as an implicit attack
on
modem marginal analysis: the sub-title of the book
is
‘Prelude
to a Critique
of
Economic Theory
’,
and Sraffa in his preface expresses
the hope that someone will eventually attempt the job
of
basing
a
critique
of
the marginal analysis
on
his
foundations.
Or,
finally, the
book can be regarded as a sort of magnificent rehabilitation
of
the
classical approach to certain crucial problems relating to value and
distribution. It is upon this third aspect of the book that
I
am
con-
centrating in the present article.
In
doing
so,
I
do not
of
course
want to suggest that the
essence
of
Sraffa’s book lies in this rehabilita-
tion
of
the
classical approach:
SraiTa’s
primary aim
is
not
to
show
that there’s life
in
the old dogs yet, but to build
a
20th-century model
to deal with 20th-century problems.
I
am approaching his book in
lThis article is based on a lecture given at the University
College
of
North Wales, Bangor, on 21 November 1960.
It
owes much to the criticisms
of
Mr. Maurice Dobb and Mr. John Eaton, who must not, however, be held
responsible for any errors which remain.
Cambridge University Press, 1960.
12s.
6d.
119
120
RONALD
L.
MEEK
this particular way simply because
I
think it affords the best method
of understanding Sraffa’s basic argument.
Let me begin by making three general points about the relation
between Sraffa’s model and the old
classical
models. First, both
Sraffa’s model and the classical models are concerned with the
investigation
of
one and the same set of properties of an economic
system-those properties,
as
Sraffa puts it, which ‘do not depend
on changes in the scale of production or in the proportions of
“
factors
”
’.3
The classical people, at any rate in their basic analysis
of
the economy
as
such, were usually
in
eflect
concerned with these
properties alone, since they often tended to assume that under given
technological conditions returns to scale
for
the industry as
a
whole
would be constant: and that the proportions in which the different
means of production were used in an industry would be technically
fixed. Sraffa, by way
of
distinction, makes no assumption whatever
about the variability or constancy of returns. Rather, he simply
selects for analysis
a
particular kind
of
economic system in which the
question
of
whether returns are variable or constant is irrelevant.
This system is one in which production goes on from day to day and
from year to year in exactly the same way, without any changes in
scale or ‘factor’ proportions at all. By this means Sraffa
is
able
deliberately
to concern himself with the investigation of the same
properties of an economic system which the classical people
objectively
concerned themselves with, while
at
the same time avoiding the
necessity of making any (possibly objectionable) assumptions about
the nature of returns.
The second point
is
this: The classical people, anxious as they
were to propound generalised statements or
‘
laws
’
relating
to
the
economy in which they were interested, naturally wanted to make
their systems
‘
determinate
’
in some useful and meaningful sense of
that word. The methods they employed to secure the requisite degree
of determinacy were often ingenious and stimulating. But they did
not hit on the idea that it would help greatly to secure determinacy
if certain specific interrelations were postulated between elements
of
input and elements
of
output over the economy as
a
whole,
so
that
the output
of
certain industries was assumed to constitute the input
of others. They were
of
course aware that such interrelations did exist
and were important
:
Quesnay, after all, framed his
Tableau
Econo-
mique;
Marx worked out his famous reproduction schemes; and
Sraffa,
p.
v.
I.e., roughly, that a change in the size
of
an industry would not alter the
unit cost
of
producing
the
commodity concerned.
To continue reading
Request your trial