Tag Archives: Criticisms of Sraffian Economics

Brad DeLong and Noah Smith chat about the Cambridge Capital Controversy on their podcast, Hexapodia is the key insight. Noah says it was only mentioned in one of his classes on macroeconomics, but seems to say he was never formally taught it. Given his summary near the start of this discussion, he has obviously read something about it. Brad thinks the language used by the MIT economists in the 1960s was badly and inaccurately phrased and poorly suited to shed light. He says he had trouble...

In a blog associated with the Frankfurter Allegmeine, Gerald Braunberger criticizes the effects of Sraffian political economy on Italian policy in the 1970s. I rely on google translate and subject matter expertise to make some sense out of this. By the way, Bertram Schefold shows up in the comments. I would like to know more about the motivations behind this. Does Braunberger think the public is increasingly aware that mainstream economics is broken? Before I disagree, I note Braunberger...

This post lists some views on Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: A Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. The quantity flows Sraffa takes as given are those observable in an actual economy at a given time, as with a snapshot (Roncaglia 1978). These quantity flows, on the contrary, are at the level of effectual demand (Garegnani 1990). These quantity flows are for an economy in a self-replacing state. The assumption of constant returns to scale is necessary for drawing...

Carlo Milana has posted a paper on arXiv. I was prepared to accept this paper's claims. Economists have developed price theory. Referring to Sraffian "paradoxes" and "perverse" switch points is a matter of speaking. There does not exist separate Sraffian and neoclassical versions of price theory. For a result to be "perverse", it need only contradict outdated neoclassical intuition. But it is as much a part of the mathematical economics as any other result. (It is another matter that much...

Figure 1: A Production Network I here comment on Baqaee and Farhi (2018). I am still trying to absorb it. I suppose that it is nice that an economist at Harvard is revisiting the Cambridge Capital Controversy (CCC). (Where is Michael Mandler these days?) My major criticism is they do not do what their title claims. That is, their supposed microeconomic foundations are still up in the air. In many CCC examples, technology is specified in terms of fixed-coefficient production processes....

This is merely a list and, as usual, off the top of my head. Paul A. Samuelson (1966). A summing up. Quarterly Journal of Economics 80: 568-583. Mark Blaug (1975). The Cambridge revolution: Success of failure? A critical analysis of Cambridge theories of value and distribution. Institute of Economic Affairs. Joseph E. Stiglitz (1974). The Cambridge-Cambridge controversy on the theory of capital: A view from New Haven. Christopher J. Bliss (1975). Capital Theory and the Distribution of...