Re: Actualizing anarchism
- From: Robert Vienneau <rvien@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 05:02:25 -0500
In article <gdlno1ditc2igbl03npqjlbon0k2l9bnfi@xxxxxxx>, jt
<jt2@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:35:28 -0500, Robert Vienneau
> <rvien@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >In the form of Leontief
> >Input-Output analysis, an objective theory of value is widely
> >empirically applicable.
> In principle or in practice? I doubt there is much in the way of
> detailed input/output data that provides inputs measured in physical
> units. National I/O tables are organized around industries and are
> based on value flows, which seem to present some of the same problems
> as neoclassical notions of capital.
Yes, there are problems with data in any context.
However, in the United States, the Bureau of Economic Analysis provides
both input/output data in value flows and price indices for each
industry in their use table. (The price indices are chain indices.)
It is thus trivial to convert the BEA data to quantity flows, although
I'm not sure what the quantities are that one then has. (For
measuring labor flows, one would have to use a wage index, available,
for example, from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics.)
It is true that I/O tables available from the OECD are not accompanied
by such price indices. However, if one assumes that the prices
reflected in such data are not far from the classical natural prices
(or Marx's prices of production), one would be applying (not testing)
an objective theory of value when using such data.
I am not aware of what data is available from other nation's national
organizations, although the Japanese seem to have amazingly detailed
data for regional analysis.
> What would constitute an
> empirical test of a Neo-Ricardian theory of value and is such a test
> feasible in the context of available data?
I'm not sure. Consider, however, the empirical work cited in my
labor theory of value FAQ, available off the URL in my sig. Some of
this work compares the fit of labor values to the fit of prices of
production. So there's some tests.
Here are some applied papers and empirical studies, not all of
which I've read. Apparently Cambridge effects appear in these papers:
Peter Albin, "Reswitching: An Empirical Observation," _Kyklos_, 1975,
Number 1, 28, pp. 149-54.
Geir B. Asheim, "The Occurrence of Paradoxical Behavior in a Model
where Economic Activity has Environmental Effects," Norwegian School
of Economics and Business Administration Discussion Papers, 1980.
Trevor Barnes and Eric Sheppard, "Technical Choice and Reswitching in
Space Economies," _Regional Science and Urban Economics_, V. 14,
pp. 345-352, 1984.
John Hartwick, "Intermediate Goods and the Spatial Integration of Land
Use," _Regional Science and Urban Economics_, V. 6, pp. 127-145, 1976.
Adam Ozanne, "Do Supply Curves Slope Up? The Empirical Relevance of
the Sraffian Critique of Neoclassical Production Economics,"
_Cambridge Journal of Economics_, Volume 20, pp. 749-762, 1996.
Raymond Prince and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., "Environment Costs and
Reswitching Between Food and Energy Production in the Western United
States," mimeo, James Madison University, 1984.
Raymond Prince and J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., "Some Implications of
Delayed Environmental Costs for Benefit Cost Analysis: A Study of
Reswitching in the Western Coal Lands, _Growth and Change_, V. 16,
18-25, 1985.
U. Schweizer and P. Varaiya, "The Spatial Structure of Production with
a Leontief Technology-II: Substitute Techniques," _Regional Science and
Urban Economics_, V. 7, pp. 293-320, 1977.
A. J. Scott, "Commodity Production and the Dynamics of Land-Use
Differentiation," _Urban Studies_, V. 16, pp. 95-104, 1979.
I like this study:
S. Zambelli, "The 40% Neoclassical Aggregate Theory of Production:
Results of a Simulation Investigation", Cambridge Journal of Economics.
Bertram Schefold has recently supervised a thesis looking at Cambridge
effects with I/O data.
My take for years has consistently been that empirical work comparing
different theories of distribution are more interesting tests that
empirical work trying to support the Cambridge logical critique of
neoclassical theory by finding Cambridge effects in the data. Marglin's
studies, for example, found neoclassical theory to be the worst of
the theories that he looked at.
Then there is all that emprical work on administrative, mark-up, or
full cost pricing.
> My take on neoclassical production theory (at least as used by applied
> economists) is that there is no such thing. Economists do not
> explicitly model production with reference to the physical quantities
> of heterogenous inputs. Instead, they work with sums of "capital" in
> a production function, which creates problems in most applications,
> since there is unlikely to be a measure that is invariant to the
> variables of interest (perhaps certain kinds of cross-sectional
> comparisons have some validity?).
The canadian economist T. K. Rymes is good to read, I guess, on these
issues.
> Capital itself seems to be defined
> as the argument in a production function, whether in a micro or macro
> model, rather than as a well-defined concept (outside of some blurb
> about being produced inputs). However, in the context of available
> data, it is not surprising that an attempt has been made to construct
> theory around available data, which at either the level of the firm or
> the level of the economy, tends to include the values of one more type
> of capital (e.g. structures and equipment). Unfortunately this
> neoclassical approach doesn't appear to follow from any kind of
> consistent reasoning process.
I think there is no excuse for the nonsense taught and published by
mainstream economists after their teaching and work was demonstrated
to be nonsense.
> I'm curious...do you think an empirical economics is possible? I seem
> to recall reading several heterodox economists musing about the
> unavoidability of using data on the capital stock in the construction
> of growth theory, and these were economists that were well-versed in
> the CCC. Of course, I don't believe they were defending the
> neoclassical theory of distribution...
I don't have a strong opinion on this issue.
My interest in Sraffa is more as a broom - to sweep away incorrect
theories - than as a brick - to build on. Joan Robinson ended up
unhappy with how little positive she had to say.
--
Mostly economics: <http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/#PublicationsForFun>
r c
v s a Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or
i m p virtue, are found in proportion to the power or wealth
e a e of a man is a question fit perhaps to be discussed by
n e . slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly
@ r c m unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of
d o the truth. -- Rousseau
.
- References:
- Re: Actualizing anarchism
- From: jt
- Re: Actualizing anarchism
- Prev by Date: Re: Bush and O'Reilly, in denial.
- Next by Date: What can be done to curb illegal Mexican immigration
- Previous by thread: Re: Actualizing anarchism
- Next by thread: What can be done to curb illegal Mexican immigration
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
