Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T13:17:00.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Note on the Inequality Approach of the Labour Theory of Value (*)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Ludo Cuyvers*
Affiliation:
Antwerp University, State University Centre, Faculty of Applied Economics
Get access

Extract

I. INTRODUCTION

The economic literature of the seventies shows a remarkable mathematical development of Marxian economics, especially after the publication, in 1970 and 1973 respectively, of Brody’s and Morishima books on Marx’s theory of value and growth (Brody (1970), Morishima (1973)) (it thus apparently took an entire decade for the many fruits contained in Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, in Okisio’s work (Okisio (1963)) and in the pioneering Econometrica paper of Morishima and Seton (1961) to mature). Not surprisingly, the relative abundance of mathematical papers and notes on the labour theory of value was accompanied by a lot of controversy. Steedman (1975) for instance, pointed out that joint production, when expressed in a linear system of equations, might easily give rise to negative labour values, a phenomenon already met by Morishima ((1973), pp. 182 ff.). In that case, positive surplus value is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the existence of positive profits. Such apparent perversities and the need of introducing the concept of scrapping unprofitable capital goods and technology, lead Morishima to develop his inequality approach.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 1986 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am indebted to Dr. W. Parys for most helpful discussions, and to two anonymous referees for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

I, however, assume the sole responsability for all the views expressed.

References

REFERENCES

Baran, P.A. (1962), The Political Economy of Growth, New York, Monthly Review Press (3rd Printing).Google Scholar
Brody, A. (1970), Proportions, Prices and Planning, Budapest-Amsterdam-London, North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Cuyvers, L. (1979), Joan Robinson’s Theory of Economic Growth, Science and Society, Vol. 43 (Fall).Google Scholar
Cuyvers, L. (1982), Baran en Sweezy na Sraffa: onbenutte groeipotentialiteiten volgens het lineair produktiemodel, in: DOOM, R. (Ed.) De mensen van de houten vis, Ghent: V.V.N. Google Scholar
Garegnani, P. (1976), On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent Work on Value and Distribution, in: BROWN, M., SATO, K. and ZAREMKA, P. (Eds), Essays in Modern Capital Theory. Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, North Holland.Google Scholar
Garegnani, P. (1979), Notes on Consumption, Investment and Effective Demand: A Reply to Joan ROBINSON, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 3 (June).Google Scholar
Harrod, R.F. (1956), Towards a Dynamic Economics, London, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1909), Capital, Vol. 2, Vol, III, Chicago, Charles H. Kerr and Company.Google Scholar
Morishima, M. (1973), Marx’s Economics, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morishima, M. (1974), Marx in the Light of Modern Economic Theory, Econometrica, Vol. 42 (July).Google Scholar
Morishima, M. and Seton, F.(1961), Aggregation in Leontief Mactrices and the Labour Theory of Value, Econometrica, Vol. 29 (April).Google Scholar
Morishima, M. and CATEPHORES, G. (1978), Value, Exploitation and Growth, London, McGraw-Hill Book Company (UK) Limited.Google Scholar
Okisio, N. (1963), A Mathematical Note on Marxian Theorems, Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Band 91, Heft 2.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (1962), Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth, London, Macmillan.Google Scholar
Steedman, I. (1975), Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value, Economic Journal, Vol. 85 (March).Google Scholar