Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 00:01:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Steedmanism



Chris asks me to briegly restate the Steedman-Sraffa critique of Marxian
value theory. I have done this in various archived discussions and haven't
time to do it here. Exams are upon us. But a nice statement may be found
in Howard & King, The Political Economy of Marx, 2d ed. It's not very
formal. Anyone with elementary algebra can follow it. Like Howard and Kind
I am not a Steedmanite who necessarilt thinks Steedman has a better value
theory. I just think that the critique raises serious questions about the
explanatory power of Marx's value theory.

Why the view is not more widely known I would not care to speculate. It is
widely known among those with a scholarly interest in value theory. Among
other Marxists, perhaps the math is off-putting. Probably they haven't
read Morishima, Desai, or Roemer either, even though Roemer at least has
taken some pains to popularize his views.

As to the problems with the models, sure, all mofdekls have unrealistic
assumptions. But if you look at the details of the models that solve the
transformation problem, the assumptions you need to make to make it work
raise grave doubts about whether anyting like taht could be happening in
the real world, where, for example, there are not constrant returns on
capital. It's quite different, for example, from the assumptions
underlying general equilibrium models (perfect information, etc.), which,
while unrealistic, do plausibly model real pressures that help explain the
behavior of markets. And, morever, in those cases the departures from the
model help us identify observable market failures. 

--Justin 





     --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---