The article discusses some issues that are relevant to a reconstruction of economic theory based on the critique of the theory of economic general equilibrium and on the modern reappraisal of the classical approach. The paper outlines the contents of the critique which has been addressed to the theory presently dominant with regard to the treatment of capital, and how those contents, which undermine the validity of the ‘principle of substitution’, are applicable also to the contemporary versions of the theory—in which capital is conceived as a complex of different commodities, and no longer as a single magnitude measured in value terms. A further aspect relevant to the critique but also to the construction of an alternative theory, which the paper points out, is that the meaningfulness of theoretical magnitudes depends on the possibility of conceiving them as ‘normal’ magnitudes, i.e. as central values of actual magnitudes, determined by relatively persistent circumstances. The need of attributing that role to theoretical magnitudes shows itself in the choice of, and the way of treating, the circumstances the theory takes as determinants, which should be such as being assigned with a character of sufficient persistence. That condition was in fact satisfied in the analyses of the classical economists as well as in the traditional formulations of the subsequent theory of general equilibrium, and is instead dropped by the modern formulations of the latter theory, which give up the unsustainable notion of capital as a value magnitude and conceive it as a vector of distinct commodities: which, as such, is subject to change endogenously between successive productive cycles, under the pressure of the maximizing behaviour of producers. On the constructive side, finally, the paper maintains the possibility of an advantageous integration of the reappraisal of the classical theory of distribution and prices with the Keynesian principle of demands as determinant of the level of aggregate production. Once associated with a theory of distribution which, differently from the dominant one, does not entail the full utilization of resources, and more generally does not establish necessary relations between price system and levels of output, that principle can operate not only in contexts of ‘short period’, or in the presence of rigidities or slowness in the movement of prices, in which it has been prevalently confined, but it can extend to long-period analyses and growth, without being constrained by any particular configuration of prices and distribution.
Prendendo spunto da un dibattito in corso, l’articolo discute alcune questioni fondamentali per una ricostruzione della teoria economica basata sulla critica della teoria dell’equilibrio economico generale e sulla ripresa moderna dell’impostazione teorica classica. Il lavoro delinea i contenuti della critica cui la teoria oggi maggioritaria si espone in relazione alla trattazione del capitale, e come quei contenuti, mettendo in discussione il ‘principio di sostituzione’, siano applicabili anche alle versioni contemporanee della teoria, nelle quali il capitale viene concepito quale complesso di beni distinti e non più come fattore singolo, in quanto tale misurato in termini di valore. Quale ulteriore aspetto rilevante per la critica della teoria dominante, ma anche per la costruzione di una teoria alternativa, si mette quindi in evidenza come la significatività delle grandezze teoriche dipenda dalla possibilità di concepirle come grandezze ‘normali’, e cioè come valori centrali delle grandezze effettive, determinati da circostanze relativamente persistenti. L’oggettiva esigenza di attribuire quel ruolo alle grandezze teoriche si manifesta nella scelta e nel modo di trattare le circostanze che la teoria assume come determinanti, alle quali deve potersi attribuire un carattere di sufficiente persistenza. Tale condizione risultava soddisfatta nelle analisi degli economisti classici e ancora nelle formulazioni tradizionali della successiva teoria dell’equilibrio generale, e viene invece meno nelle elaborazioni moderne di quest’ultima, che, rinunciando alla insostenibile nozione del capitale quale quantità di valore, lo concepiscono come vettore di beni distinti: che, in quanto tale, è soggetto a modificarsi endogenamente da un ciclo produttivo all’altro, sotto la spinta del comportamento massimizzante degli individui. Sul versante costruttivo, infine, il lavoro sostiene la possibilità di integrare proficuamente la ripresa della teoria classica della distribuzione e dei prezzi con il principio keynesiano del ruolo della domanda quale determinate del livello della produzione aggregata. Associato ad una teoria della distribuzione che, diversamente da quella dominante, non implica condizioni di pieno utilizzo delle risorse, e più in generale non stabilisce nessi necessari tra sistema dei prezzi e quantità prodotte, quel principio può infatti esplicarsi non soltanto in contesti di ‘breve periodo’, ovvero in presenza di rigidità o lentezza del movimento dei prezzi, nei quali esso è stato prevalentemente confinato, ma estendersi, senza vincoli di compatibilità con particolari configurazioni di prezzi e distribuzione, alle analisi di lungo periodo e della crescita.
Ciccone, R. (2005). “Critica e ricostruzione della teoria economica”. CRITICA MARXISTA, 2-3, marzo-giugno, 103-112.
“Critica e ricostruzione della teoria economica”
CICCONE, Roberto
2005-01-01
Abstract
The article discusses some issues that are relevant to a reconstruction of economic theory based on the critique of the theory of economic general equilibrium and on the modern reappraisal of the classical approach. The paper outlines the contents of the critique which has been addressed to the theory presently dominant with regard to the treatment of capital, and how those contents, which undermine the validity of the ‘principle of substitution’, are applicable also to the contemporary versions of the theory—in which capital is conceived as a complex of different commodities, and no longer as a single magnitude measured in value terms. A further aspect relevant to the critique but also to the construction of an alternative theory, which the paper points out, is that the meaningfulness of theoretical magnitudes depends on the possibility of conceiving them as ‘normal’ magnitudes, i.e. as central values of actual magnitudes, determined by relatively persistent circumstances. The need of attributing that role to theoretical magnitudes shows itself in the choice of, and the way of treating, the circumstances the theory takes as determinants, which should be such as being assigned with a character of sufficient persistence. That condition was in fact satisfied in the analyses of the classical economists as well as in the traditional formulations of the subsequent theory of general equilibrium, and is instead dropped by the modern formulations of the latter theory, which give up the unsustainable notion of capital as a value magnitude and conceive it as a vector of distinct commodities: which, as such, is subject to change endogenously between successive productive cycles, under the pressure of the maximizing behaviour of producers. On the constructive side, finally, the paper maintains the possibility of an advantageous integration of the reappraisal of the classical theory of distribution and prices with the Keynesian principle of demands as determinant of the level of aggregate production. Once associated with a theory of distribution which, differently from the dominant one, does not entail the full utilization of resources, and more generally does not establish necessary relations between price system and levels of output, that principle can operate not only in contexts of ‘short period’, or in the presence of rigidities or slowness in the movement of prices, in which it has been prevalently confined, but it can extend to long-period analyses and growth, without being constrained by any particular configuration of prices and distribution.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.