Marxian Political Economy and Surplus Economics

  • M. C. Howard
  • J. E. King
Part of the Radical Economics book series (RAE)


Sraffian economists1 have remained essentially unmoved by all attempts to salvage Marx’s theory of value, and have continued to maintain that the critique outlined in Chapter 13 above holds true: the labour-value categories, however reformulated, are at best redundant and at worst contradictory or erroneous. At the same time Sraffians have claimed that their analysis of Marx is constructive, arguing that Sraffa and Marx both belong to a ‘surplus paradigm’ and so share the same perspective and methodology. Thus they argue that their critique of Marx is an ‘internal’ one, and that Marxian political economy has really been strengthened because the defects in the original formulation have been exposed and shown to be irrelevant to the more general approach which underpins it. In consequence, Sraffa’s work represents a secure foundation upon which the surplus paradigm can be developed and the real insights of Marxism reconstituted.2


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    J. Eatwell, review of J.E. Roemer’s Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory, Contributions to Political Economy, 1, 1982, pp. 106–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2a.
    E.J. Nell, ‘Theories of Growth and Theories of Value’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 16, 1967, pp. 15–26 gives a very good exposition of the surplus paradigm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2b.
    See also I. Steedman, ‘Thinking Again About Profits’, New Statesman, 5 January 1979, pp. 10–12Google Scholar
  4. 2c.
    M.C. Howard, Profits in Economic Theory (London: Macmillan, 1983), chapter 22c.Google Scholar
  5. 2d.
    and P. Garegnani, ‘Surplus Approach to Value and Distribution’, in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman (eds), The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (London: Macmillan, 1987), volume IV, pp. 560–74.Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    Nell ‘Theories’; J.E. Eatwell, ‘Controversies in the Theory of Surplus Value: Old and New’, Science and Society, 38, 1973, pp. 281–303Google Scholar
  7. 3a.
    Mr. Sraffa’s ‘Standard Commodity and the Rate of Exploitation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 89, 1975, pp. 543–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 3b.
    J.E. King, ‘Value and Exploitation: Some Recent Debates’, in I. Bradley and M. Howard (eds), Classical and Marxian Political Economy (London: Macmillan, 1982), pp. 157–87; Garegnani, ‘Surplus Approach’, pp. 570–3;Google Scholar
  9. 3c.
    B. Jossa, ‘The Theory of Exploitation in Marx’, paper presented to the History of Economics Society, University of Toronto, June 1988.Google Scholar
  10. 3d.
    See also G.A. Cohen, ‘The Labour Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation’, in I. Steedman, et al (eds), The Value Controversy(London: Verso, 1981), pp. 202–23. and Ch. 13. section VI. above.Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    L.L. Pasinetti, ‘Again on Capital Theory and Solow’s “Rate of Return”’, Economic Journal, 80, 1970, pp. 28–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 4a.
    P. Garegnani, ‘Sraffa’s Revival of Marxist Economic Theory’, New Left Review, 112, 1978, pp. 71–5. Sraffian economists frequently characterise neoclassical economics in an erroneous manner;Google Scholar
  13. 4b.
    see Howard, Profits, pp. 148–9 and Howard, Modern Theories of Income Distribution (London: Macmillan. 1979). pp. 60–3. 74–75. 122–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 5.
    P. Sraffa, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), D. 93.Google Scholar
  15. 6.
    For an account of the neoclassical concepts of consumer’s and producer’s surplus see H.R. Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics (New York: Norton, 1990), 2nd edn, pp. 240–57, 297, 366, 373, 387, 422.Google Scholar
  16. 7.
    Here a broad similarity of view exists with that of the Althusserian structuralists, but neither the Sraffians nor the Althusserians have attempted to form a bridge to the others’ work. And it would be difficult to do so for many reasons, not the least of which is that the Sraffians would necessarily be sharply critical of Althusser’s own peculiar form of Marxian fundamentalism in value theory. See Howard, Profits, pp. 11–16, 143–44, 153–5; Howard, ‘Economics on a Sraffian Foundation: A Critical Analysis of Neo-Ricardian Theory,’ Economy and Society, 16, 1987, pp. 317–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 7a.
    and L. Althusser and E. Balibar, Reading Capital (London: New Left Books, 1970).Google Scholar
  18. 8.
    See G.C. Harcourt, The Social Science Imperialists (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), Ch. 15, and Eatwell, Milgate and Newman, New Palgrave, volume I, pp. 392–4.Google Scholar
  19. 9.
    S.A. Marglin, Growth, Distribution and Prices (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984) provides a good discussion of neoclassical theory; see especially pp. 12, 313, 317, 321, 328ff, 524ff, 529–32, 537–8, 540. See also I. Bradley and M. Howard, ‘An Introduction to Classical and Marxian Political Economv’. in Bradley and Howard. Classical and Marxian. pp. 1–43.Google Scholar
  20. 10.
    R.L. Meek, ‘Mr. Sraffa’s Rehabilitation of Classical Economics’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 8, 1961, pp. 119–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 10a.
    M.H. Dobb, ‘An Epoch Making Book’, Labour Monthly, 1961, pp. 487–91.Google Scholar
  22. 11.
    M. Dobb, Theories of Value and Distribution Since Adam Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 11a.
    R.L. Meek, Smith, Marx and After (London: Chapman and Hall, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 11b.
    See also K. Bharadwaj, Classical Political Economy and the Rise to Dominance of Supply and Demand Theories (London: Longman, 1976)Google Scholar
  25. 11c.
    and V. Walsh and H. Gram, Classical and Neoclassical Theories of General Equilibrium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  26. 12.
    R.L. Meek (ed.) Precursors of Adam Smith (London: Dent 1973)Google Scholar
  27. 13.
    R.L. Meek, Social Science and the Ignoble Savage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  28. 14.
    P. Sraffa, ‘Introduction’ in The Works of David Ricardo: Volume I, edited by P. Sraffa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), pp. xiii-lxiiGoogle Scholar
  29. 14a.
    B.H. Pollitt, ‘The Collaboration of Maurice Dobb in Sraffa’s Edition of Ricardo’, Cambridge Journal of Economics. 12. 1988. pp. 55–65.Google Scholar
  30. 15.
    M. Dobb, Political Economy of Capitalism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1937)Google Scholar
  31. 15a.
    R.L. Meek, Studies in the Labour Theory of Value (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1956).Google Scholar
  32. 16.
    P. Garegnani, ‘Notes on Consumption, Investment and Effective Demand: II’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 3, 1979, pp. 63–82; ‘Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists and Marx’, Oxford Economic Papers, 36, 1984, pp. 291–325.Google Scholar
  33. 17.
    M. Milgate, Capital and Employment (London: Academic Press, 1982)Google Scholar
  34. 17a.
    J. Eatwell and M. Milgate (eds), Keynes’s Economics and the Theory of Value and Distribution (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1983).Google Scholar
  35. 18.
    P. Garegnani, ‘On the Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent Work on Value and Distribution: a Comment on Samuelson’, in M. Brown, K. Sato and P. Zarembka (eds), Essays in Modern Capital Theory (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976), pp. 25–45Google Scholar
  36. 18a.
    M. Milgate, ‘On the Origin of the Notion of “Intertemporal Equilibrium”’, Economica, 46, 1979, pp. 1–10. Many of the entries in Eatwell, Milgate and Newman in The New Palgrave represent the most recent and comprehensive expression of this view: see, for example, I, pp. 357–68; II, pp. 179–83, 726–8; III, pp. 238–40; 598–9, 605–8, 786–7; IV, pp. 253–4, 560–74, 868–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 18b.
    and M. Blaug, Economics Through the Looking Glass: The Distorted Perspective of the New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1988).Google Scholar
  38. 19.
    Dobb, Theories, pp. 247ff; M. Dobb, ‘The Sraffa System and Critique of the Neoclassical Theory of Distribution’, De Economist, 118, 1970, pp. 347–62. Meek held back from this view; section V below shows that he was wise to do so.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 20.
    Dobb, Political Economy; R.L. Meek, Economics and Ideology (London: Chapman & Hall, 1967).Google Scholar
  40. 21.
    See J.E. King, ‘Marx as an Historian of Economic Thought’, History of Political Economy, 11, 1979, pp. 382–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 22.
    See, for example, P. Mattick, review of Dobb, Science and Society, 38, 1974, pp. 222–3.Google Scholar
  42. 23.
    P.M. Sweezy, review of Dobb, Journal of Economic Literature, 12, 1974, pp. 481–3; see also P.M. Sweezy, ‘Marxian Value Theory and Crises’, in Steedman, Value Controversy, pp. 20–35.Google Scholar
  43. 24.
    B.J. McFarlane, ‘McFarlane on Dobb’, in H.W. Spiegel and W.J. Samuels (eds), Contemporary Economists in Perspective (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1984), pp. 595–621Google Scholar
  44. 24a.
    G. Pilling, ‘Law of Value in Ricardo and Marx’, Economy and Society. 1. 1972. pp. 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 25.
    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
  46. 26.
    M.C. Howard and J.E. King, The Political Economy of Marx (Harlow: Longman, 1985), 2nd edn, pp. 43–8, 52–9, 167; see also Ch. 14 above.Google Scholar
  47. 28.
    R.L. Meek, ‘Introduction to the Second Edition’ in Studies (2nd edn, 1973), pp. i-xlivGoogle Scholar
  48. 28a.
    G. Hodgson, Capitalism, Value and Exploitation: A Radical Theory (New York: Monthly Review, 1982)Google Scholar
  49. 28b.
    S.J. Pack, Reconstructing Marxian Economics (New York: Praeger, 1985).Google Scholar
  50. 29.
    R. Hilferding, ‘Böhm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx’ in P.M. Sweezy (ed.), Karl Marx and the Close of his System (New York: Kelley, 1966), pp. 121–96Google Scholar
  51. 29a.
    F. Petry, Der Soziale Gehalt der Marxschen Werttheorie (Jena: Fisher, 1916)Google Scholar
  52. 29b.
    I.I. Rubin, Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value (Montreal: Black Rose, 1973; first published c.1920)Google Scholar
  53. 29c.
    P.M. Sweezy, The Theory of Capitalist Development (London: Dobson, 1946)Google Scholar
  54. 29d.
    R. Rosdolsky, The Making of Marx’s ‘Capital’ (London: Pluto Press, 1977). See also Ch. 3 of volume I of this book.Google Scholar
  55. 30.
    E. Mandel and A. Freeman (eds), Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa (London: Verso, 1984), pp. 19–25, 213ff, 222Google Scholar
  56. 30a.
    B. Fine and L. Harris, Rereading Capital (London: Macmillan, 1979)Google Scholar
  57. 30b.
    P.A. Swanson, ‘The Labor Theory of Value and Fixed Capital’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 18, 1986, pp. 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 30c.
    M. Itoh, The Basic Theory of Capitalism (London: Macmillan, 1988), pp. 174–8.Google Scholar
  59. 31.
    E.O. Wright, ‘Reconsiderations’, in Steedman, Value Controversy, pp. 161–2; H. Cleaver, Reading Capital Politically (Austin: University of Texas Press. 1979).Google Scholar
  60. 32.
    See, for example, Elson, Value; Mandel and Freeman, Ricardo; B. Fine, The Value Dimension: Marx Versus Ricardo and Sraffa (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986): and Steedman, Value Controversy, pp. 224ff.Google Scholar
  61. 35.
    I. Steedman, Marx After Sraffa (London: New Left Books, 1977), pp. 16–26, 77–87, 112–15.Google Scholar
  62. 36.
    See, for example, F. Roosevelt, ‘Cambridge Economics as Commodity Fetishism’, Review of Radical Political Economics, 7, 1975, pp. 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 36a.
    J.B. Davis, ‘Sraffa, Wittgenstein and Neoclassical Economics’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 12, 1988, pp. 29–36 provides a broader perspective in defence of Sraffa.Google Scholar
  64. 40.
    K. Marx, Capital II, (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1970), Chs 20 and 21.Google Scholar
  65. 41.
    L.L. Pasinetti, Lectures on the Theory of Production (London: Macmillan, 1977)Google Scholar
  66. 41a.
    L. Mainwaring, Value and Distribution in Capitalist Economies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  67. 42.
    L.L. Pasinetti, Growth and Income Distribution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  68. 45.
    See, for example, D.J. Harris, ‘The Theory of Economic Growth: From Steady States to Uneven Development’ in G. Feiwel (ed.), Contemporary Issues in Macroeconomics and Distribution (London: Macmillan. 1985). pp. 378–94.Google Scholar
  69. 46.
    L.L. Pasinetti, Structural Change and Economic Growth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
  70. 47.
    R.M. Goodwin, ‘Swinging Along the Autostrada’, in W. Semmler, Competition, Instability and Nonlinear Cycles (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1986), pp. 125–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 47a.
    R.M. Goodwin, ‘Swinging Along the Autostrada: Cyclical Fluctuations Along the Von Neumann Ray’, in M. Dore, S. Chakravarty and R. Goodwin, (eds), John Von Neumann and Modern Economics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), pp. 125–40.Google Scholar
  72. 48.
    J. Robinson, The Accumulation of Capital (London: Macmillan, 1956); for a critical outline of Robinson’s work see Howard, Modern Theories, Ch. 6.Google Scholar
  73. 49.
    Marglin, Growth; D.J. Harris, Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978)Google Scholar
  74. 49a.
    A. Bhaduri and J. Robinson, ‘Accumulation and Exploitation: An Analysis in the Tradition of Marx, Sraffa and Kalecki’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 4, 1980, pp. 103–15Google Scholar
  75. 49b.
    P.M. Lichtenstein, An Introduction to Post-Keynesian and Marxian Theories of Value and Price (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1983).Google Scholar
  76. 50.
    C.J. Bliss, Capital Theory and the Distribution of Income (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1975). Ch. 15.Google Scholar
  77. 51.
    S. Hollander, The Economics of David Ricardo (London: Heinemann, 1979)Google Scholar
  78. 51a.
    Hollander, ‘Marxian Economics as “General Equilibrium” Theory’, History of Political Economy 13, 1981, pp. 121–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 51b.
    Hollander, Classical Economics (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987)Google Scholar
  80. 51c.
    G.J. Stigler, ‘Palgrave’s Dictionary of Economics’, Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1988, pp. 1129–36.Google Scholar
  81. 53.
    However, see M. Bronfenbrenner, ‘A Rehabilitation of Classical Economics’, Aovama Kokusai Seikei Ronshu 13, 1989. pp. 35–41, who supports Hollander.Google Scholar
  82. 56.
    R. Dorfman, P.A. Samuelson and R. Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1958)Google Scholar
  83. 56a.
    T.C. Koopmans, ‘Economic Growth at a Maximal Rate’, Quarterly. Journal of Economics, 78, 1964, pp. 355–94; K.J. Arrow, ‘Von Neumann and the Existence Theorem for General Equilibrium’, in Dore, John Von Neumann, pp. 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 57.
    Samuelson, ‘Revisionist View’, and ‘Sraffian Economics’; Goodwin ‘Autostra-da’, in Dore, John Von Neumann, and in Semmler, Competition, Instability and Nonlinear Cycles; M. Morishima, Marx’s Economics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1973).Google Scholar
  85. 58.
    F.H. Hahn, ‘Revival of Political Economy: The Wrong Issues and the Wrong Argument’, Economic Record, 51, 1975, pp. 360–4; ‘The Neo-Ricardians’, Cambridge Journal of Economics. 6 1982. pp 353–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 61.
    R. Rowthorn, ‘Neo-Ricardianism or Marxism?’, New Left Review, 86, 1974, pp. 63–87Google Scholar
  87. 61b.
    A. Medio, ‘Neoclassicals, Neo-Ricardians, and Marx’, in J. Schwartz (ed.), The Subtle Anatomy of Capitalism (Santa Monica, Cal.: Goodyear, 1977), pp. 381–411; Mandel and Freeman, Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa, pp. 32–3. 224–9.Google Scholar
  88. 65.
    Bradley and Howard, ‘Piero Sraffa’s “Production of Commodities”’, p. 248. This is in fact a complex issue. Steedman and Schefold have sought to show rigorously that, apart from ‘fluke’ cases, the number of processes will be equal to the number of commodities, but in doing so they have made assumptions which are wholly unreasonable. See Howard, ‘Economics on a Sraffian Foundation’, pp. 326–8, and J.E. Woods, The Production of Commodities: An Introduction to Sraffa (London: Macmillan, 1990), Ch. 11.Google Scholar
  89. 67.
    J. Robinson, ‘Foreword’ to J.A. Kregel, The Reconstruction of Political Economy (London: Macmillan, 1973), p. x.Google Scholar
  90. 68.
    J. Robinson (ed.), After Kevnes (Oxford: Blackwell, 1973), p. 5.Google Scholar
  91. 71.
    See, for example, K.J. Arrow and F.H. Hahn, General Competitive Analysis (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1971)Google Scholar
  92. 71a.
    and P.J. Hammond, ‘Some Assumptions of Contemporary Neoclassical Theology’, in G.R. Feiwel, (ed.), Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory (New York: New York University Press, 1989), pp. 186–257.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© M. C. Howard and J. E. King 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. C. Howard
    • 1
    • 2
  • J. E. King
    • 3
  1. 1.University of WaterlooCanada
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  3. 3.La Trobe UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations