Invariable Measure Of Value Research Articles

A comment on Sraffa’s ‘classical economics’

This paper tells the story of how Sraffa’s interpretation of classical economics, particularly Ricardo, closely follows the developments of his own theoretical project that culminated in his book, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, in 1960. It highlights some early movements in Sraffa’s position on classical economics and then a major shift in his position on Ricardo in the ‘Introduction’ to Ricardo’s Principles in 1951. It brings forward archival evidence to suggest that Sraffa’s new interpretation of Ricardo was perhaps influenced by his attempt to prove his ‘Hypothesis’ that the output/capital ratio of a given economic system remains constant with respect to changes in the rate of profits. This hypothesis as such, however, had nothing to do with Ricardo’s problem of the ‘invariable measure of value’. The paper concludes by pointing out that as early as 1927–28, Sraffa had set himself a task of constructing a homogenous understanding of classical economics in terms of modern terminology that would be helpful in understanding their scope from the point of view of his own theoretical project. Our story told here fits well with the task Sraffa had set himself at the beginning of his project.

A Category-Mistake in the Classical Labor Theory of Value: Identification and Resolution

The classical labor theory of value generates two well-known antinomies: Ricardo’s problem of an invariable measure of value and Marx’s transformation problem. I show that both antinomies are generated by the same category-mistake of expecting a technical measure of labor cost to function as a total measure of labor cost. This category-mistake is the deep conceptual generator of the two hundred year history of the ‘value controversy’. Once identified we can avoid the category-mistake, which yields a labor theory of value with an invariable measure of value and without a transformation problem.

A note on Ricardo's ‘invariable measure of value'

Résumé Cet article présente une alternative aux interprétations proposées par Sraffa et ses commentateurs à propos de la recherche menée par Ricardo d’une « mesure invariable de la valeur ». Il montre que Ricardo a reconnu deux causes de changement des valeurs relatives des biens : tout d’abord le changement de la part du travail dans les biens et ensuite les changements de répartition des revenus. Cependant, il a considéré le premier changement comme le seul véritable et le second uniquement comme un changement « apparent ». Cet article développe l’idée que Ricardo pensait que les changements « apparents » étaient seulement causés par la nature arbitraire du numéraire et qu’ils disparaîtraient si les biens étaient évalués selon une « mesure invariable de la valeur ».

Professor Samuelson on Sraffa and the classical economists

In this article, part of an ongoing discussion, Samuelson (2000) is taken as the occasion for a critical examination of Samuelson's work on the classical economists and Sraffa, a subject of continuing interest for that author, especially after Sraffa (1960). The article argues for the existence in Smith and Ricardo of an alternative approach to distribution and prices, and it aims at a critique of Samuelson's contention that ‘Smith, Ricardo and J.S. Mill used essentially the same logical paradigm as did Walras and Arrow Debreu’ (2000: 140). In the first two sections, the attempt by Arrow (1991) to detect in Ricardo a theory of prices independent of demand—and founded instead on a real wage determined separately from, though not necessarily independently of, prices and the non-wage distributive variables—is considered with its implication of the wage entering the determination of the latter as an ‘intermediate datum’ of the theory. This then makes it possible to outline the characteristic analysis we find in Smith and Ricardo, where the wage as ‘intermediate datum’ entails a similar treatment of the output levels. The resulting theoretical structure is then used in order to answer, in sections III and IV, the two basic criticism, that Samuelson has advanced against Sraffa (1960). While the claimed dependence of the (1960) prices on an assumption of constant returns is voided by the mentioned treatment of outputs as intermediate data, the relevance of the Standard commodity, as well as that of Ricardo's ‘invariable measure of value’ is explained by the needs of determining non-wage incomes as a difference or ‘residual’, the essence of the theoretical structure under consideration. Section V then deals more directly with Samuelson's denial of the existence of a classical paradigm of economic theory. His arguments and interpretations are found to be in contrast with central features of Smith and Ricardo's work and, in particular, with their theory of wages. Thus, the admission of labour unemployment in ‘normal’ competitive positions compels Samuelson to a highly questionable interpretation of the chapter ‘On Machinery’ in Ricardo's Principles. In section VI, finally, the attribution to ‘Sraffian literature’ of a central concern for what Samuelson sees as ‘steady states’, but are in fact the traditional ‘normal positions’ of the economy leads the article to the deficiencies of neoclassical theory—an issue inevitably underlying the debate on the Classical paradigm. The dependence of the traditional versions of the theory, based on normal positions, on the notion of capital as a single magnitude—which forced the generalized abandonment of those versions in pure theory after the early stages of the capital controversies—is argued to emerge as equally present in the contemporary reformulations of the theory, thus affecting them, it is argued, no less than it did the abandoned earlier versions.

On Sraffa's Standard commodity: is its price invariant with respect to changes in income distribution?

In his 1960 book, Sraffa suggested using a composite commodity, which he called the 'Standard commodity', to solve Ricardo's search for an invariable measure of value, i.e., a standard capable of isolating the price movements of any other commodity induced by changes in income distribution. The absence in Sraffa's book of an explicit proof of the invariance property of this standard gave rise to many misunderstandings about its meaning and its role as an invariable measure of value. In order to clear up these questions, Bellino (On Sraffa's Standard commodity, Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 28, 121-32, 2004) has proposed a 'proper' definition of an 'invariable measure of value', showing that Sraffa's Standard commodity does fulfil the requirements of this definition. He claims that the fulfilment of this property (but not the constancy of its 'nominal' price) qualifies the Standard commodity as an invariable measure of value. In this paper, a proof of the invariance of the price of the Standard commodity with respect to changes in income distribution is given, and the equivalence of this property with Bellino's definition of invariance is shown.

The transformation problem: Is the standard commodity a solution?

This paper attempts to closely investigate the relationship between Ricardo's search for an invariable measure of value and Sraffa's Standard commodity on the one hand and Marx's transformation problem and his notion of exploitation on the other. The paper argues that Marx's notion of exploitation is subtly different from the Sraffian notion of exploitation as suggested by Garegnani. And that the Standard commodity is not a solution to Marx's transformation problem as suggested by Eatwell. The paper is an attempt to initiate a fruitful dialog between Marxists and Sraffians on the question of labor as a unit of measure and its relation to the notion of exploitation.

The Transformation Problem: Is the Standard Commodity a Solution?

This paper attempts to closely investigate the relationship between Ricardo's search for an invariable measure of value and Sraffa's Standard commodity on the one hand and Marx's transformation problem and his notion of exploitation on the other. The paper argues that Marx's notion of exploitation is subtly different from the Sraffian notion of exploitation as suggested by Garegnani. And that the Standard commodity is not a solution to Marx's transformation problem as suggested by Eatwell. The paper is an attempt to initiate a fruitful dialog between Marxists and Sraffians on the question of labor as a unit of measure and its relation to the notion of exploitation.

On interpreting Ricardo: a reply to Sraffians

This paper seeks to clarify and defend aspects of the interpretation advanced in Interpreting Ricardo (Terry Peach, 1993) in the light of published criticisms by writers of a ‘Sraffian’ persuasion. The principal areas of discussion include the ‘corn model’ interpretation, the labour theory of value and the invariable measure of value, and the Ricardo-Sraffa relationship.

Ricardo's Invariable Measure of Value and Sraffa's ‘Standard Commodity’

Research Article| June 01 1983 Ricardo's Invariable Measure of Value and Sraffa's ‘Standard Commodity’ Nai-Pew Ong Nai-Pew Ong Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google History of Political Economy (1983) 15 (2): 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-15-2-207 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Nai-Pew Ong; Ricardo's Invariable Measure of Value and Sraffa's ‘Standard Commodity’. History of Political Economy 1 June 1983; 15 (2): 207–227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-15-2-207 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsHistory of Political Economy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 1983 by Duke University Press1983 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.