Sraffa's Standard Commodity Research Articles

An empirically sufficient form for Sraffa prices

This paper examines three propositions: Sraffa's comment that Marx was “of course” right in thinking that labor value and “Sraffa price” (prices expressed relative to Sraffa's standard commodity) aggregates are essentially the same: empirical deviations of various aggregate components of total output are around five percent. This should be reflected in small representative models. Second, Pasinetti is correct that actual Sraffa price paths are generally simpler than those in the theoretical literature – as confirmed by the 403 industry price curves of the US 2002 input-output matrix. Third, as has been often demonstrated, Marx's transformation procedure is an iterative procedure for deriving Sraffa prices. Bienenfeld derives powerful first and second iterates, each beginning and ending at the corresponding individual Sraffa price curves. The simple nonlinear form of the second iterate provides excellent fits for the 403 Sraffa price curves. It is therefore an empirically sufficient general form of such price curves.

The Labor Theory of Value and Sraffa's Standard Commodity With Markup Pricing

This article demonstrates relationships that are transparent in Sraffa’s standard system hold even when relative rates of profit vary persistently among industries. Even with such variations, total constant capital, total variable capital, total surplus value, and the rate of profits are unaltered by evaluation at labor values and at prices of production in Sraffa’s standard system. These results buttress those who see in the standard commodity a solution for Marx’s so-called transformation problem.

On the Ricardian invariable measure of value in general convex economies

This study examines the possibility of an invariable measure of value when price changes induced by income redistribution between profit and wages take place in general convex economies. While Ricardo searched for an invariable measure of value with respect to changes in both the factor income distribution and the technique, Sraffa constructed a standard commodity serving as a measure of the change in a factor income distribution alone by leaving aside the possibility of changes in the size and composition of output and means of production. This study allows for the possibility that a change in factor income distribution involves a change in technique, and proposes an extension of Sraffa's standard commodity. Then, we show that it serves as an invariable measure of value with respect to the income redistribution, even though it involves a change in technique. Finally, we examine whether the linear distributional relation is preserved.

RICARDO: Standard Commodity : : MARX: ?

Sraffa's construct, the standard commodity, responds to Ricardo's search for an ‘invariable’ measure of value, since it is a measurement unit invariant to changes in distribution. But Sraffa suggests that there is no ‘counterpart,’ no analogous search or needed construct, for the ‘problem’ of ‘difference’ as distinct from change (‘why two commodities produced by the same quantities of labour are not of the same exchangeable value’). Difference in this sense is crucial to Marx, who distinguishes value and surplus-value from capitalist price and profit in part in order to theorize differences as systematic value transfers. In that effort, Marx repeatedly poses commodities and capitals as ‘aliquot parts’ of the whole, so that profit is a redistributed share of aggregate surplus-value. This paper shows that, when Marx's aliquot part imagery is formalized, the resulting hypothetical system represents a meaningful ‘counterpart,’ a construct with a function in Marx's analysis of difference comparable to that of Sraffa's standard commodity in analyzing distributional change. A Marxian ‘standard system’ posing each commodity as an aliquot part of the social capital (a) defines the needed labor-time unit of social account by homogenizing heterogeneous concrete labors as socially average (‘abstract’) labor while simultaneously (b) allowing the derivation of exchange-value (e.g., capitalist production price) on that scale via summation of directly and indirectly embodied labor. Indeed, Marx's approach to production prices as resulting from an inter-industry redistribution of aggregate surplus-value is shown to be algebraically identical to the calculation of labor-embodied under ‘aliquot part’ production conditions.

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.

Sraffa and Goodwin: A unifying framework for standards of value in the income distribution problem

In this paper we show that direct links exist between Sraffian and Goodwinian methodologies in income distribution theory. In fact, Sraffa's Standard commodity approach and Goodwin's transformation of axes are shown to be different manifestations of the same structural approach. Both are brought under a unified framework in terms of transformations involving a transformation matrix of rank one. To obtain transparency Sraffa is shown to retain as much interdependency as possible while Goodwin sacrifies all interdependent structure. It appears that a central role is played by models related to closed models of input-output type.

On the Significance of Sraffa's Standard Commodity

On the Significance of Sraffa's Standard Commodity

Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa's Standard Commodity: A Rejoinder

Research Article| September 01 1986 Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa's Standard Commodity: A Rejoinder Pier Luigi Porta Pier Luigi Porta Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google History of Political Economy (1986) 18 (3): 479–484. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-18-3-479 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Pier Luigi Porta; Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa's Standard Commodity: A Rejoinder. History of Political Economy 1 September 1986; 18 (3): 479–484. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-18-3-479 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 © 1986 by Duke University Press1986 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal Issue Section: Articles You do not currently have access to this content.

Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa's Standard Commodity: A Note on the Marxian Notion of Surplus

Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa's Standard Commodity: A Note on the Marxian Notion of Surplus

Professor Porta on the Significance of Understanding Sraffa's Standard Commodity and the Marxian Theory of Surplus: A Comment

Research Article| September 01 1986 Professor Porta on the Significance of Understanding Sraffa's Standard Commodity and the Marxian Theory of Surplus: A Comment Peter Groenewegen Peter Groenewegen 1 Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google History of Political Economy (1986) 18 (3): 455–462. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-18-3-455 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Peter Groenewegen; Professor Porta on the Significance of Understanding Sraffa's Standard Commodity and the Marxian Theory of Surplus: A Comment. History of Political Economy 1 September 1986; 18 (3): 455–462. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-18-3-455 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 © 1986 by Duke University Press1986 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

On sraffa's "standard commodity" and the rate of profit

This note proves the inconsistency of Sraffa's Standard Commodity with the Marxian approach. It also shows to be wrong his deduction that non-basic sectors have no effect on the dectermination of prices and the rate of profit.

Sraffa, Labor Theories of Value, and the Economics of Real Wage Rate Determination

The labor theory of value and the question of whether or not a real wage rate versus profit rate trade-off exists have been topics debated since the times of Ricardo and Marx. More recently these topics have been investigated using Sraffa's standard commodity approach. It is argued here that such approaches are basically flawed. However, it also is shown that there are situations consistent with perfect competition for which negatively sloped real wage rate versus profit or interest rate trade-offs do exist. Thus, despite perfect competition, genuine bargaining situations may arise between workers and owners of the capitalistic means of production.

Heterogeneous Labour and the Fundamental Marxian Theorem

As was pointed out by Morishima at the end of his famous book on Marx's Economics, the heterogeneity of labour is a serious dilemma for Marx's theory of exploitation, especially for the so called Fundamental Marxian Theorem. The problem, which should be separated from the peculiarities of joint production, consists in finding an appropriate reduction of the various types of labour to one common unit. Recently Bowles and Gintis have undertaken an interesting reformulation of the Marxian theory of value with respect to heterogeneous labour by avoiding any reduction at all (Bowles and Gintis 1977, 1978. Cf. also Steedman 1977, Holliinder 1978). But for the purpose of the Fundamental Marxian Theorem this only shifts the problem from the heterogeneity of labour to the heterogeneity of the respective rates of exploitation. The aim of the present paper is to extend the Fundamental Marxian Theorem (without joint production) from homogeneous to heterogeneous labour (Section 3). This extension is based on a new concept called the standard reduction of labour, because of its dual relationship to Sraffa's standard commodity (Section 2). For some arguments a certain type of matrices, called Sraffa matrices, is needed, which generalize the quasiirreducible matrices as introduced by Bowles and Gintis (Appendix). Standard reduction implies always a uniform rate of exploitation, whereas the same is true for the reduction by wage rates only in special cases (for example: uniform consumption; labour inputs only; prices proportional to labour values. For the first two cases cf. Morishima 1978). Hence, in general standard reduction and reduction by wage rates are different.

A Generalization of Sraffa's Standard Commodity and Its Complete Characterization

A Generalization of Sraffa's Standard Commodity and Its Complete Characterization

Mr. Sraffa's Standard Commodity and the Rate of Exploitation

I. Introduction, 543. — III. The use of physical analogues in the classical theory of value, 544. — III. The rate of exploitation, 550. — IV. A complementary approach, 555.