El Viejo Almacen -Bs.As.

Surplus Approach

“Es necesario volver a la economía política de los Fisiócratas, Smith, Ricardo y Marx. Y uno debe proceder en dos direcciones: i) purgar la teoría de todas las dificultades e incongruencias que los economistas clásicos (y Marx) no fueron capaces de superar, y, ii) seguir y desarrollar la relevante y verdadera teoría económica como se vino desarrollando desde “Petty, Cantillón, los Fisiócratas, Smith, Ricardo, Marx”. Este natural y consistente flujo de ideas ha sido repentinamente interrumpido y enterrado debajo de todo, invadido, sumergido y arrasado con la fuerza de una ola marina de economía marginal. Debe ser rescatada."
Luigi Pasinetti

ISSN 1853-0419
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Lavoie. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Lavoie. Mostrar todas las entradas


Marc Lavoie and the Sraffian Supermultiplier

Convergence towards the normal rate of capacity utilization in Kaleckian models: The role of non - capacity creating autonomous expenditures

Posteamos este video de Marc Lavoie donde demuestra que el modelo del Supermultiplicador de Franklin Serrano, resuelve el problema de inestabilidad de  Harrod y las dificultades de los modelos neokaleckianos como el grado de utilizacion endógena de la capacidad productiva. Ya habiamos posteado ACA con el trabajo del profesor Allain que desde posturas neokaleckianas se había aceptado este resultado.

Este video pertenece a una conferencia sobre aplicaciones de matemática económica en Toronto-Mathematics for New Economic Thinking- y el paper fue presentado en Berlin en el Instituto IMK donde hay un nucleo neokaleckiano importante. 
En el argumenta que :

Kaleckian models of growth and distribution have been highly popular among heterodox economists. Two drawbacks of these models have however been underlined in theliterature:
first, the models do not usually converge to their normal rate of capacity utilization; second, the models do not include the Harrodian principle of dynamic instability. Some Sraffian economists have long been arguing that the presence of non-capacity creating autonomous expenditures provides a mechanism that brings back the model to normal rates of capacity utilization, while safeguarding the main Keynesianmessage and without going back to classical conclusions. The present paper provides a very simple proof of this, showing that the Harrodian principle of dynamic instability get stamed by the presence of autonomous consumer expenditures.

El paper de Lavoie es parte de un capítulo de la nueva edición del libro de Lavoie- que como menciona al comienzo del video, se llamará "New Foundations of Post Keynesian Economics" que aún no salió.


Sraffa and the Reconstruction of Economic Theory

Theories of Value and Distribution

Edited By Enrico Sergio Levrero, Antonella Palumbo and Antonella Stirati

Written on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the publication of Piero Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, the papers selected and contained in this book account for the work completed around the two central aspects of his contribution to economic analysis, namely the criticism of the neoclassical (or 'marginalist') theory of value and distribution, and the reconstruction of economic theory along the lines of the Classical approach. Divided into three volumes, the book debates the most fruitful routes for advancements in this field and their implications for applied and policy analysis.

This first volume focuses on the critique of general equilibrium theory and the determinants of income distribution, together with the related issue of the different methods of analysis which characterise the Classical theory and the marginalist approach.

Enrico Sergio Levrero is Associate Professor at Roma Tre University, Italy. His main research interests are in the theories of value and distribution, wages and the labour market, issues of monetary economics and Sraffa's works. His previous works include Four Lectures on Wages and the Labour Market (2012) and he has published several articles in academic journals and collective volumes. 
Antonella Palumbo is Associate Professor of economics at Roma Tre University, Italy. Her main research interests and activities are in the modern revival of Classical economics and in the theories of demand-led growth. She has published several articles in academic journals and collective volumes.

Antonella Stirati is currently a Professor at Roma Tre University, Italy. Her main scientific interest is in the revival of the surplus approach, particularly in the areas of income distribution and employment theory. She has published the Theory of Wages in Classical Economics (Elgar, 1994) and several articles in academic journals and collective volumes.

Table of Contents Book I

1. On the Present State of the Capital Controversy; Pierangelo Garegnani
2. Two Strands of Thought in Pierangelo Garegnani's Capital Theory Critique; Harvey Gram
3. Only a Few Techniques Matter! On the Number of Curves on the Wage Frontier; Bertram Schefold
4. On the Stability of the Ramsey Accumulation Path; Enrico Bellino
5. Malinvaud on Wicksell's Legacy to Capital Theory: Some Critical Remarks; Saverio M. Fratini
6. Capital and Stationary States; Paolo Trabucchi

7.Marx's theory of wages and the revival of the Surplus Approach; Enrico Sergio Levrero
8. On Advanced Capitalism and the Determinants of the Change in Income Distribution: A Classical Interpretation; Massimo Pivetti
9. Alternative 'Closures' to Sraffa's System: Some Reflections in the Light of the Changes in Income Distribution in the Last Decades; Antonella Stirati 
10. Sraffa and Keynes: Two Ways of Making a 'Revolution' in Economic Theory; Guglielmo Chiodi and Leonardo Ditta
11. Causality and Structure in Piecemeal Macroeconomic Modelling; Sergio Parrinello
12. On the Link Between Functional and Personal Distribution in Italy; Aldo Barba
13. Exchange Rate Policy, Distributive Conflict and Structural Heterogeneity. The Argentinian and Brazilian Cases; Alejandro Fiorito and Fabian Amico

Table of Contents Book II












Table of Contents Book III

By Enrico Sergio Levrero, Antonella Palumbo and Antonella Stirati

1. Piero Sraffa and the Future of Economics – A Personal Evaluation; Luigi Pasinetti
2. Disequilibrium and Reproduction Prices: Some Extensions of Sraffa's Model; Carlo Benetti, Christian Bidard and Edith Klimovsky
3. Sraffa's System in Relation to Some Main Currents in Unorthodox Economics; Tony Aspromourgos
4. Sraffians, Other Post-Keynesians, and the Controversy Over Centres of Gravitation; Marc Lavoie
5. Sraffa, Sen and Non-causal Representations in Social Analysis; Andrea Ginzburg
6. Piero Sraffa and Shackle's Years of High Theory – Sraffa's Significance in the History of Economic Theories; Heinrich Bortis

7. On Sraffa's and Wittgenstein Methodological Similarities: from the Rejection of Inadequate Types of Causality to the Comparison of Different 'forms of life'; Richard Arena
8. Sraffa's Lectures on Continental Banking; Marcello de Cecco
9. The Construction of Long Period Supply Curves: Notes on Sraffa's Criticism to the Analyses of Partial Equilibrium; Giuseppe Freni and Neri Salvadori
10. A Pictorial Approach to the Standard Commodity with a Digression; Giorgio Gilibert
11. On Sraffa's Corrected Organic Composition of Capital; Scott Carter

12. Rent, as a Share of Produce, Not Governed by Proportions; Christian Gherke
13. Ricardo's Writings in Russia: Influence and Interpretations; Gennady Borgomazov and Denis Melnik



The Reform of the Central Bank Charter is Necessary for Growth and Stability

By Sergio Cesaratto, Marc Lavoie and John Weeks

“Give me a one-handed economist! All my economists say: on the one hand… on the other…” once famously said the U.S. President Truman. In his interview to La Nación professor Lance Taylor provides the perfect example of a two-handed economist: he supports growth, but he warns of the dangers of inflation; he approves of a central bank that cooperates with fiscal authorities, but he warns of excessive public spending; he gives his support to import controls, but he warns of their possible “micro-inefficiencies”. Professor Taylor thus plays the two-handed game of criticizing whatever the Argentineans could possibly do, even if we are not completely convinced that he actually said in the interview that he is in favor of an Independent Central Bank, as the headline would make you believe.
Of course we share, and we are sure that the Argentinean government shares, some of these preoccupations – although we are less concerned with the idea that import controls only protect domestic inefficient sectors. To begin with, comparing Argentina with Europe, where the inability of the Central Bank to cooperate with the national treasuries has created the crisis, Argentina looks pretty good, with a central bank that is mandated to cooperate with the democratically-elected government to pursue growth and employment rates that are consistent with the lowest possible inflation rate. In Europe, a non-cooperative European Central Bank has let interest rates on sovereign debt jump to unsustainable levels. In that respect the Argentinean central bank acts more like the North American Federal Reserve.
In addition, European central bankers and political leaders have advocated austerity measures that are causing a serious recession and that exacerbate the public budget problems caused by the financial crisis, very much like Argentina did during the Convertibility period, in which the former Central Bank Charter was imposed. By contrast, in Argentina now, there is a pro-growth central bank that carefully uses its foreign exchange reserves to reduce the needs of the government to borrow on international financial markets, and that wishes to sustain domestic investment through a public investment bank. This can only be good news.
Nobody would deny the importance of a competitive real exchange rate to sustain exports and favor the development of a competitive manufacturing sector. We believe that the reliance of exports on the vagaries of soya prices and harvests is a preoccupation of the Argentinean authorities too. Many Argentinean economists are however skeptical about the positive effects of currency depreciation on manufacturing exports; instead they are more concerned about the inflationary effects that exchange depreciation might have in a country like Argentina, with its strong tradition of labour militancy in defending real wages. They also warn that a policy of real wage compression through a depreciating exchange rate, if successful, would depress domestic consumption, growth and unemployment, with little compensation from an unlikely export-led boom. So, in any case, the objective of a competitive exchange rate should not be accompanied by restrictive fiscal and monetary policies, but rather should be accompanied by income policies that would preserve real wages.
Finally, the government with the support of many economists, in its attempt to diversify the export sector and reduce the import dependence, is relying on a pro-active industrial and trade policy, rather than relying on the real-exchange-rate-depreciation cum fiscal-contraction model proposed by critics. One cannot forget that Brazil has public control of long-term finance through BNDES, and that given Argentina’s higher GDP growth rate, the Argentinean government might have legitimate reasons to impose imports controls. As to the inefficiencies allegedly brought about by import substitution policies and import controls, the de-industrialization outcomes of decades of neo-liberalism are a much worse heritage. We do favor, in general, a more depreciated exchange rate to reduce the external constraint, but because devaluation is inflationary, on the cost side, and there often is wage resistance, one must be moderate. Exchange rates are only one price, and the notion that there is a perfect level that would solve everything, leading to growth, stability and sustainable current account by itself, might be a chimera.


Sergio Cesaratto y Marc Lavoie sobre la Crisis Europea en la UBA

El viernes pasado en la Facultad de Economía de la UBA a instancias de Esep, expusieron los invitados al Congreso de Economistas Heterodoxos, sobre la actual crisis económica mundial. El día anterior expusieron un muy interesante debate teórico entre teorías sobre el crecimiento dirigido por la demanda. Cesaratto desarrollando las diferencias entre los modelos de Harrod, la expresión de la Ecuación de Cambridge de Joan Robinson y Pasinetti, los Neokaleckianos,  la versión del Centro Sraffa y la de la Periferia Sraffiana con el Supermultiplicador. Los puntos en consideración eran tres: distribución exogena clásica, hipótesis keynesiana de independencia entre inversión y ahorro corto y largo plazo, y crecimiento con utilización de capacidad normal.

Lavoie lo había antecedido con una presentación a favor de incorporar a los sraffianos dentro de la linea post-keynesiana, lo que sin embargo no deja de tener una importante diferencia en punto a la gravitación clásica de precios de mercado en torno a los precios de producción.

Sergio Cesaratto expuso brevemente sobre la política mercantilista de Alemania.

Mientras que Marc Lavoie se refirió a la estructura  y supuestos de la Banca Central Europea.


Marc Lavoie: Should Sraffian economics be dropped out of the post-Keynesian school?

International Conference
Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities 1960-2010.
2nd-4th December 2010, Roma Tre University, Faculty of Economics



Comments Antonella Stirati


After the Lavoie speech the following discussion took place



Varios metodólogos post-keynesianos argumentan que los sraffianos deberían ser dejados afuera de la escuela post-keynesiana (por ejemplo, Dunn, 2000, p. 350), como Sraffianos parecen estar demasiado preocupados con la maximización de beneficios, la eficiencia estática y largo plazo, prestando poca atención a cuestiones tales como la incertidumbre, la liquidez y el corto plazo. Una división entre sraffianos y fundamentalistas y kaleckianos post-keynesianos, en su opinión, contribuiría a dar mayor coherencia a la economía post-keynesiana. El presente trabajo argumenta que se trata de un movimiento innecesario.
En primer lugar, los Sraffianos están íntimamente relacionados con el análisis post-keynesiana por la tradición y la historia. En segundo lugar, los Sraffianos están de acuerdo con otros post-keynesianos en temas cruciales como la relación de causalidad entre la inversión y el ahorro, la función de la demanda efectiva tanto a corto como a largo plazo, la endogeneidad de la oferta de dinero y la posibilidad de que el banco Central fije las tasas de interés a corto plazo en los niveles de su elección (Dutt y Amadeo, 1990). En tercer lugar, las opiniones sraffianas no son homogéneas y se han desarrollado a través del tiempo, de modo que, como señaló Nell (2009 y Harcourt 2001), las distinciones entre los Sraffianos y otras de sus vertientes no parece ser tan fuerte como antes’. Los Sraffianos modernos no suponen más que la economía está siempre funcionando en la capacidad normal o completa. La mayoría de ellos ni siquiera suponer que la economía está funcionando a capacidad normal en el largo plazo. En cuarto lugar, los Sraffianos proporcionan las ecuaciones que explican la producción y distribución en un entorno interdependiente, algo que falta en cierta medida en los otros capítulos. La teoría de los precios sraffiana puede ser vista como una idealización de la teoría de precios administrados, un tipo específico de precios de referencia (Nell, 1998), que hacen abstracción de la información imperfecta, los desequilibrios anteriores, las tasas de ganancia no uniforme o las tasas de rendimiento objetivo, estructura de la deuda, etc

Por último, los Sraffianos han hecho contribuciones al análisis monetario. Los Sraffianos fueron los primeros en reclamar que los precios relativos y los salarios reales se ven afectados por el nivel de la tendencia de la tasa de interés, a través de su impacto proporcional en la tasa de ganancia normal, es decir, el objetivo de tasa de retorno incrustado en la fijación de mark ups. En el documento se desarrollan estos puntos, con el argumento de que la economía sraffiana ha hecho una contribución positiva a la economía post-keynesiana.