Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Marxian Value Theory After Sraffa

  • Chapter
A History of Marxian Economics

Part of the book series: Radical Economics ((RAE))

  • 152 Accesses

Abstract

As we indicated in the previous chapter, the impact of Sraffa’s The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities was by no means immediate. The initial effect was to generate an attack upon neoclassical theory, which resulted in the ‘Cambridge Controversies’ of the mid-1960s. Although this was relevant to the Marxian analysis of ‘vulgar economy’, it did not bear upon the logical coherence of Marxian political economy itself, and it was not until the 1970s that the direct implications for Marxian economics began to be appreciated. Meanwhile, the questions raised by Francis Seton and Paul Samuelson in the 1950s awaited answers (see Chapter 12 above). It remained to be seen whether Samuelson’s conclusions could be generalised to an n-sector model, and whether (as Engels and others had supposed) the transformation of values into prices of production could legitimately be regarded as a historical as well as a logical process (see volume I of this book, Chapter 3, section II). Also unresolved were important methodological issues concerning the role of mathematical models in the appraisal of Marxian value theory, and the relative significance of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. M. Dobb, Theories of Value and Distribution Since Adam Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), p. 161.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Morishima and F. Seton, ‘Aggregation in Leontief Matrices and the Labour Theory of Value’. Econometrica 29. 1961. pp. 203–20.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid, p. 205; cf. J. Robinson, An Essay on Marxian Economics (London: Macmillan, 1942), Ch. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See also J.S. Szumski, ‘The Transformation Problem Solved’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 13, 1989, pp. 431–52.

    Google Scholar 

  5. L. Johansen, ‘Labour Theory of Value and Marginal Utilities’, Economics of Planning 3, 1963, pp. 89–103.

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. Okishio, ‘A Mathematical Note on Marxian Theorems’, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 91. 1963. pp. 296–8 and (especially) p. 297, n.1.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Brody, Proportions, Prices and Planning: A Mathematical Restatement of the Labour Theory of Value (Amsterdam: North-Holland. 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Dobb, ‘The Sraffa System and the Critique of the Neo-Classical Theory of Distribution’, De Economist, 118, 1970, pp. 347–62.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P.A. Samuelson, ‘The “Transformation” From Marxian “Values” to Competi-tive “Prices”: A Process of Rejection and Replacement’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 67. 1970. pp. 423–5.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.A. Samuelson, ‘Understanding the Marxian Notion of Exploitation: A Summary of the So—Called Transformation Problem between Marxian Values and Competitive Prices’, Journal of Economic Literature, 9, 1971, pp. 399–431.

    Google Scholar 

  11. A. Lerner, ‘A Note on “Understanding the Marxian Notion of Exploitation”’, Journal of Economic Literature, 10, 1972, p. 50

    Google Scholar 

  12. J. Robinson, ‘Samuelson and Marx’, Journal of Economic Literature, 11, 1973, p. 1367

    Google Scholar 

  13. see Samuelson, ‘The Economics of Marx: an Ecumenical Reply’, Journal of Economic Literature, 10, 1972, pp. 51–7, and ‘Comment’, Journal of Economic Literature, 11, 1973, p. 1367, for his response.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W.J. Baumol, ‘The Transformation of Values: What Marx “Really” Meant: an Interpretation’. Journal of Economic Literature, 12, 1974, pp. 56–59.

    Google Scholar 

  15. P.A. Samuelson, ‘Insight and Detour in the Theory of Exploitation: A Reply to Baumol’, Journal of Economic Literature, 12, 1974, pp. 62–70; W. J. Baumol, ‘Comment’, ibid., pp. 74–5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. M. Morishima, ‘The Fundamental Marxian Theorem: a Reply to Samuelson’, Journal of Economic Literature, 12, 1974, pp. 71–4

    Google Scholar 

  17. Samuelson had criticised Morishima’s book in his reply to Baumol, and reiterated his objections in Samuelson, ‘Rejoinder: “Merlin Unclothed”, a Final Word’, Journal of Economic Literature, 12, 1974, pp. 75–7. Morishima’s work will be discussed in section IV of this chapter.

    Google Scholar 

  18. M. Bronfenbrenner, ‘Samuelson, Marx and Their Latest Critics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 11, 1973, p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  19. P.A. Samuelson, ‘Samuelson’s Rep1y on Marxian Matters’, Journal of Economic Literature, 11. 1973. p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  20. P. Mattick, ‘Samuelson’s “Transformation” of Marxism into Bourgeois Economics’, Science and Society, 36, 1972, pp. 258–73; for Mattick’s earlier work see section I of Ch. 1, and section IV of Ch. 5 above.

    Google Scholar 

  21. D. Laibman, ‘Values and Prices of Production: The Political Economy of the Transformation Problem’, Science and Society, 37, 1973–4, pp. 404–36; Laib-man thanked Samuelson for comments on section IV of the article (p. 430, n.24).

    Google Scholar 

  22. P. M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970; first published 1942), p. 25

    Google Scholar 

  23. cf. E.K. Hunt, ‘The Meaning and Significance of the Transformation Problem: Two Contrasting Approaches’, Atlantic Economic Journal, XVII, 1989, pp. 47–54, whose distinction between empiricism and rationalism carries very similar implications.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. M.C. Howard and J.E. King, The Political Economy of Marx (Harlow: Longman, 1st edn, 1975, pp. 161–2: 2nd edn. 1985. pp. 174–7).

    Google Scholar 

  25. P.M. Sweezy, ‘Marxian Value Theory and Crises’, Monthly Review, 31, July— August 1979, pp. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  26. D. Elson, ‘The Value Theory of Labour’, in D. Elson (ed.), Value: The Representation of Labour in Capitalism (London: CSE Books, 1979), pp. 115–80

    Google Scholar 

  27. see also D. Gleicher, ‘The Ontology of Labor Values: Remarks on the “Science and Society” Value Symposium’, Science and Society, 49, 1985–6, pp. 463–71.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See also G. Southworth, ‘Samuelson on Marx: A Note’, Review of Radical Political Economics 4, 1972. pp. 103–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Samuelson, ‘Marx as Mathematical Economist’, in G. Horwich and P.A. Samuelson (eds), Trade, Stability, and Macroeconomics: Essays in Honor of Lloyd A. Metzler (New York: Academic Press. 1974) p. 288.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Samuelson, ‘Marx As Mathematical Economist’, p. 301, where he writes of values and prices as representing ‘a dual accounting system’; cf. J.E. King, ‘Samuelson’s Marx—Kritik’, Social Scientist 33, 1975, pp.3–13, pp. 6–7, who notes that the logical structure of the transformation from values into prices is the same as that from Imperial to metric measures, and that this does not entail that one is ‘correct’ and the other ‘false’, and Southworth, ‘Samuelson on Marx’, p. 108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. G. Pilling, ‘The Law of Value in Ricardo and Marx’, Economy and Society, 1, 1972, pp. 281–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. S. de Brunhoff, ‘Marx as an A—Ricardian: Value, Money and Price at the Beginning of “Capital”’ , Economy and Society 2, 1973, pp. 421–30;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. cf. B. Fine, Marx’s ‘Capital’ (London: Macmillan, 1975)

    Google Scholar 

  34. and B. Fine and L. Harris, ‘Controversial Issues in Marxist Economic Theory’, Socialist Register, 1976, pp. 141–78.

    Google Scholar 

  35. The relevant articles are collected in B. Fine (ed.), The Value Dimension: Marx Versus Ricardo and Sraffa (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986). This paragraph draws heavily on Fine’s lucid ‘Introduction’ to that volume.

    Google Scholar 

  36. R. Rowthorn, ‘Neo-Ricardianism or Marxism?’, New Left Review, 86, 1974, pp. 63–87; an earlier version appeared as ‘Neoclassical Economics and Its Critics: A Marxist View’, Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 11, 1973, pp. 316–48.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ibid, pp. 82–7; cf. Howard and King, Political Economy, (1985), pp. 91–107

    Google Scholar 

  38. and I. Steedman, ‘Marx on Ricardo’, in I. Bradley and M.C. Howard (eds), Classical and Marxian Political Economy: Essays in Honour of Ronald Meek (London: Macmillan, 1982), pp. 115–56. Steedman argues that Marx’s critique of Ricardo was unjustified.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Rowthorn, ‘Neo-Ricardianism or Marxism?’, p. 84; cf. F. Roosevelt, ‘Cambridge Economics as Commodity Fetishism’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 7, 1975, p. 7. The same charge was laid against Samuelson: see King, ‘Samuelson’s Marx-Kritik’, p. 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. ‘Rowthorn, ‘Neo-Ricardianism or Marxism?’, p. 75; cf. A. Medio, ‘Neoclassicals, Neo-Ricardians, and Marx’, in J. Schwartz (ed.), The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism (Santa Monica, Cal.: Goodyear, 1977), pp. 381–411.

    Google Scholar 

  41. R.L. Meek, ‘Karl Marx’s Economic Method’, in Meek, Economics and Ideology and Other Essays (London: Chapman & Hall, 1967), pp. 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  42. M. Morishima, Marx’s Economics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Morishima, ‘Marx in the Light of Modern Economic Theory’, Econometrica, 42, 1974, pp. 611–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Morishima and G. Catephores, Value, Exploitation and Growth (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  45. See also the reviews of Marx’s Economics by C.C. von Weizsäcker, Economic Journal, 83, 1973, pp. 1245–54

    Google Scholar 

  46. I. Steedman, Manchester School, 41, 1973, pp. 355–6

    Google Scholar 

  47. and E. Nell, Journal of Economic Literature, 11. 1973, pp. 1369–72.

    Google Scholar 

  48. The Fundamental Marxian Theorem can be traced back at least as far as F. Seton, ‘The “Transformation Problem”’ , Review of Economic Studies, 24, 1957, p.151, n.2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49a. see also Okishio, ‘Mathematical Note’, pp 292–3. It was thus not discovered by Samuelson in 1971, as suggested by C.C. von Weizsäcker, ‘On Ricardo and Marx’, in E.C. Brown and R.M. Solow (eds), Paul Samuelson and Modern Economic Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill. 1983). pp. 203–10.

    Google Scholar 

  50. On Marx as ‘an intrinsic mathematician’, see Morishima, ‘Marx in the Light’, pp. 612–13; for a discussion of alternative definitions of value in these circumstances. see Howard and King Political Economy (1985). no. 150–6.

    Google Scholar 

  51. I. Steedman, ‘Positive Profits With Negative Surplus Value’, Economic Journal, 85, 1975 pp. 114–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. M. Morishitna, ‘Positive Profits With Negative Surplus Value: a Comment’, Economic Journal 86, 1976, pp. 599–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. I. Steedman, ‘Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value: A Reply’, Economic Journal, 86,1976, pp. 604–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. I. Steedman, Marx After Sraffa (London: New Left Books, 1978), p. 207 (original stress)

    Google Scholar 

  55. cf. P. Garegnani, ‘Sraffa’s Revival of Marxist Economic Theory: An Interview With Pierangelo Garegnani’, New Left Review, 112, 1978, pp. 71–5.

    Google Scholar 

  56. I. Steedman, ‘The Transformation Problem Again’, Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists 2, 1973, pp. 37–42

    Google Scholar 

  57. I. Steedman, ‘Value, Price and Profit’, New Left Review. 90. 1975, pp. 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See the reviews of Marx After Sraffa by G.C. Harcourt, Journal of Economic Literature, 17, 1979, pp. 534–6

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. Roemer, Science and Society, 43, 1977, pp. 95–9

    Google Scholar 

  60. and L. Mainwaring, Manchester School, 47, 1979, pp. 305–7

    Google Scholar 

  61. see also H. Kurz. ‘Sraffa After Marx’, Australian Economic Papers, 18, 1979, pp. 52–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. G. Hodgson, ‘Exploitation and Embodied Labour Time’, Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists, 5, 1976, pp. GH 10, GH 18

    Google Scholar 

  63. cf. Hodgson, ‘Marxist Epistemology and the Transformation Problem’, Economy and Society, 3, 1974, pp. 357–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Hodgson, ‘A Theory of Exploitation Without the Labor Theory of Value’, Science and Society, 44, 1980, pp. 257–73

    Google Scholar 

  65. D. Laibman, ‘Exploitation, Commodity Relations and Capitalism: A Defense of the Labor-Value Formulation’, Science and Societv. 14, 1980, pp. 274–88.

    Google Scholar 

  66. I. Steedman, ‘Thinking Again About Profits’, New Statesman, 5 January 1979, p. 11; see also J.E. King, ‘Value and Exploitation: Some Recent Debates’, in I. Bradley and M.C. Howard, Classical and Marxian, pp. 157–87.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Brody, Proportions, p. 94; K. Marx, Capital, III (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1962), p. 174; Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, pp. 128–30.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Meek, Studies in the Labour Theory of Value, (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1956), lst edn, pp. 198–200; cf. (1973) 2nd Edn, pp. xxxii-xl.

    Google Scholar 

  69. M. Morishima and G. Catephores, ‘Is There an “Historical Transformation Problem?”’, Economic Journal, 85, 1975, pp. 309–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. R.L. Meek, ‘Is There an “Historical Transformation Problem?” A Comment’, Economic Journal, 86, 1976, pp. 342–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. M. Morishima and G. Catephores, ‘The “Historical Transformation Problem“; A Reply’, Economic Journal, 86, 1976, pp. 348–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. B. Fine, ‘On the Historical Transformation Problem’, Economy and Society, 9, 1980, pp. 337–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. G. Catephores, ‘The Historical Transformation Problem — a Reply’, Economy and Society, 9, 1980, pp. 332–6 (both reprinted in Fine, The Value Dimension, pp. 185–7 and 180–4)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. see also G. Hodgson, Capitalism, Value and Exploitation: A Radical Theory (Oxford: Martin Robertson, 1982), pp. 104–7.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Morishima and Catephores, ‘“Historical Transformation”’ (1975), pp. 325–6.

    Google Scholar 

  76. M. Desai, ‘The Transformation Problem’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 2, 1988, p. 320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. D.M. Nuti, ‘The Transformation of Labor Values into Production Prices and the Marxian Theory of Exploitation’, in Schwartz, Subtle Anatomy, p. 103; see also G. Abraham-Frois and E. Berrebi, The Theory of Value, Prices and Accumulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), pp. 217–18; King. ‘Value and Exploitation’, pp. 161–2.

    Google Scholar 

  78. A. Shaikh, ‘Marx’s Theory of Value and the “Transformation Problem”’, pp. 106–39 of Schwartz, Subtle Anatomy see also Shaikh, ‘The Transformation From Marx to Sraffa’, in E. Mandel and A. Freeman (eds), Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa (London: Verso, 1984), pp. 43–84.

    Google Scholar 

  79. E.K. Hunt and M. Glick, ‘Transformation Problem’, in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman (eds), The New Palgrave: a Dictionary of Economics, volume IV (London: Macmillan, 1987), pp. 688–91.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See also P. Patnaik, ‘Marx’s Transformation Problem and Ricardo’s Invariant Measure’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 13, 1989, pp. 555–62.

    Google Scholar 

  81. G. Duménil, De La Valeur Aux Prix De Production (Paris: Economica, 1980)

    Google Scholar 

  82. D. Foley, ‘The Value of Money, the Value of Labor Power and the Marxian Transformation Problem’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 14, 1982, pp. 37–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. A. Lipietz, ‘The So—Called “Transformation Problem” Revisited’, Journal of Economic Theory, 26, 1982, pp. 59–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. G. Duménil, ‘Beyond the Transformation Riddle: A Labor Theory of Value’, Science and Society, 47, 1984, pp. 427–50

    Google Scholar 

  85. M. Glick and H. Ehrbar, ‘The Transformation Problem: An Obituary’, Australian Economic Papers, 26, 1987, pp. 294–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. D.K. Foley, Understanding Capital: Marx’s Economic Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1986), pp. 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  87. On Marx as a general equilibrium theorist see Morishima, Marx’s Economics, pp. 1–2 and, for a more extreme view, S. Hollander, ‘Marxian Economics as “General Equilibrium” Theory’, History of Political Economy, 13, 1981, pp. 121–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. E. Farjoun and M. Machover, Laws of Chaos: A Probabilistic Approach to Political Economy (London: Verso, 1983)

    Google Scholar 

  89. E. Farjoun, ‘The Production of Commodities By Means of What?’, in Mandel and Freeman, Ricardo, pp. 11–41; H. Nikaido, ‘Marx on Competition’, Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, 43, 1983, pp. 337–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. J.A. Clifton, ‘Competition and the Evolution of the Capitalist Mode of Production’. Cambridge Journal of Economics. 1. 1977. 137–51.

    Google Scholar 

  91. I. Steedman, review of Laws of Chaos, Economic Journal, 93, 1983, pp. 1015–16; this is the only review that we have been able to locate.

    Google Scholar 

  92. W. Semmler, ‘Competition: Marxian Conceptions’ in New Palgrave, I, pp. 540— 2. See also Nikaido, ‘Marx on Competition’;, I. Steedman, ‘Natural Prices, Differential Profit Rates, and the Classical Competitive Process’, Manchester School, 52, 1984, pp. 123–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. L. Boggio, ‘On the Stability of Production Prices’, Metroeconomica, 37, 1985, pp. 241–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. W. Semmler (ed.), Competition, Instability and Nonlinear Cycles (Berlin: Springer–Verlag, 1986)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  95. Part I; P. Flaschel and W. Semmler, ‘Classical and Neoclassical Competitive Adjustment Processes’, Manchester School, 55, 1987, pp. 13–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. G. Duménil and D. Levy, ‘The Dynamics of Competition: A Restoration of the Classical Analysis’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11, 1987, pp. 133–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. and R. Walker, ‘The Dynamics of Value, Price and Profit’, Capital and Class, 35, 1988, pp. 143–82.

    Google Scholar 

  98. For a fuller discussion of these issues, see Howard and King, Political Economy (1985), Ch. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  99. M. Blaug, ‘Another Look at the Labour Reduction Problem in Marx’, in Bradley and Howard, Classical and Marxian, pp. 188–202; U. Krause, ‘Heterogeneous Labour and the Fundamental Marxian Theorem’, Review of Economic Studies, 48, 1981, pp. 173–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. M. Itoh, ‘Skilled Labour in Value Theory’, Capital and Class, 31, 1987, pp. 39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Itoh, The Basic Theory of Capitalism (London: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 149–68.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  102. P.B. Doeringer and M.J. Piore, Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1971), Ch. 8

    Google Scholar 

  103. cf. C. Kerr, ‘The Intellectual Role of Neorealists in Labor Economics’, Industrial Relations, 22, 1983, pp. 298–318

    Google Scholar 

  104. and M. Segal, ‘Post-Institutionalism in Labor Economics: The Forties and Fifties Reconsidered’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 39, 1986, pp. 388–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. J.E. Roemer, ‘Differentially Exploited Labor: A Marxian Theory of Exploitation’, Review of Radical Political Economics 10, 1978, pp. 43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. M. Reich, Racial Inequality: A Political-Economic Analysis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981)

    Google Scholar 

  107. M. Reich and J. Devine, ‘The Microeconomics of Conflict and Hierarchy in Capitalist Production’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 12, 1981, pp. 27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. and D.M. Gordon, R.C. Edwards and M. Reich, Segmented Work, Divided Workers: The Historical Transformation of Labor in the United States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  109. J.E. King, Labour Economics (London: Macmillan, 1990), 2nd edn, Ch. 6.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  110. S. Bowles and H. Gintis, ‘The Marxian Theory of Value and Heterogeneous Labour: A Critique and Reformulation’, Cambridge Journal of Economics 1, 1977, pp. 173–92

    Google Scholar 

  111. M. Morishima, ‘S. Bowles and H. Gintis on the Marxian Theory of Value and Heterogeneous Labour’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2, 1978, pp. 305–9

    Google Scholar 

  112. Bowles and Gintis, ‘Professor Morishima on Heterogeneous Labour and Marxian Value Theory’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2, 1978, pp. 311–14

    Google Scholar 

  113. G. Catephores, ‘On Heterogeneous Labour and the Labour Theory of Value’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 5, 1981, pp. 273–80

    Google Scholar 

  114. E.J. McKenna, ‘A Comment on Bowles and Gintis’ Marxian Theory of Value’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 5, 1981, 281–4

    Google Scholar 

  115. S. Bowles and H. Gintis, ‘Labour Heterogeneity and the Labour Theory of Value: A Reply’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 5, 1981, pp. 285–8.

    Google Scholar 

  116. H. Gintis, ‘The Nature of the Labor Exchange’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 8, 1976, pp. 36–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. H. Gintis and S. Bowles, ‘Structure and Practices in the Labor Theory of Value’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 12, 1981, pp. 1–26; Hodgson, Capitalism, Value and Exploitation, pp. 178–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. B. Bradby, ‘The Rernystification of Value’, Capital and Class, 17, 1982, pp. 114–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. D. Purdy, Social Power and the Labour Market (London: Macmillan. 1988).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  120. I. Gough, ‘Marx’s Theory of Productive and Unproductive Labour’, New Left Review 76, 1972, pp. 47–72

    Google Scholar 

  121. E.K. Hunt, ‘The Categories of Productive and Unproductive Labor in Marxist Economic Theory’, Science and Society, 43, 1979, pp. 303–25

    Google Scholar 

  122. Howard and King, Political Economy (1985), pp. 128–32; see also section V of Ch. 6 above, and section VI of Ch. 16 below.

    Google Scholar 

  123. P.A. Samuelson, ‘A Modern Treatment of the Ricardian Economy’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 73, 1959, pp. 1–35 and 217–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Howard and King, Political Economy (1985), pp. 150–6

    Google Scholar 

  125. O. Horverak, ‘Marx’s View of Competition and Price Determination’, History of Political Economy, 20, 1988, pp. 275–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. See Ch. 10 above, and also A. Shaikh, ‘Foreign Trade and the Law of Value’, Science and Society, 43, 1979, pp. 281–302 and 44, 1980, pp. 27–57.

    Google Scholar 

  127. P.M. Sweezy, ‘Monopoly Capital and the Theory of Value’, Monthly Review, 25, January 1974, pp. 31–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. M.C. Sawyer, The Economics of Michal Kalecki (London: Macmillan, 1985), Ch. 2.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  129. Brody, Proportions, p. 91; Farjoun and Machover, Laws of Chaos Gintis and Bowles, ‘Structure and Practice’, pp. 7, 18–21; Hodgson, Capitalism, Value and Exploitation, pp. 59, 77–81, 91–2; J.E. Roemer, Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981) , pp. 204–8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  130. E.K. Hunt, ‘The Meaning and Significance of the Transformation Problem: Two Contrasting Approaches’, Atlantic Economic Journal, 17, 1989, pp. 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. This is true as a matter of logic. Less formally, empirical research indicates that labour value ratios are in fact very closely correlated with ratios of prices of production, and that this correlation is not sensitive to quite substantial variations in the rate of profit. See P. Petrovic, ‘The Deviation of Production Prices from Labour Values: Some Methodology and Empirical Evidence’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 11, 1987, pp. 197–210.

    Google Scholar 

  132. J. Robinson, An Essay on Marxian Economics (London: Macmillan, 1942), p. 20; original stress.

    Google Scholar 

  133. H.J. Sherman, ‘A Marxist Theory of the Business Cycle’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 11, 1979, pp. 1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. K. Cowling, Monopoly Capitalism (London: Macmillan, 1982)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  135. M.C. Sawyer, Macroeconomics in Question (Brighton: Wheatsheaf, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Waterloo, Canada

    M. C. Howard (Professor of Economics)

  2. University of California, Riverside, USA

    M. C. Howard (Professor of Economics)

  3. La Trobe University, Australia

    J. E. King (Reader in Economics)

Authors
  1. M. C. Howard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. E. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1992 M. C. Howard and J. E. King

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Howard, M.C., King, J.E. (1992). Marxian Value Theory After Sraffa. In: A History of Marxian Economics. Radical Economics. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21890-5_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation