Bank for International Settlements (BIS) - Receptive to Heterodoxy?

I never even heard of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) before a couple years ago. I am vaguely aware of the Basel accords, which I guess they have something to do with.

I have come across two papers - a ridiculously small number of data points - which make me wonder if they are receptive to heterodox economics. William White, the former chief economist of the BIS, criticized last December the direction of research in modern macroeconomics. He thinks macroeconomists should pay more attention to Hyman Minsky and also Austrian Business Cycle Theory. In a current BIS working paper (H/T to D-Squared), Piti Disyatat rejects the loanable funds theory and argues for the theory of an endogenous money supply, if I understand correctly. This paper references, among others, Basil Moore, Thomas Palley, and Randy Wray.

Colin Rogers and Ian Steedman Down Under

Colin Rogers has a review essay of Geoff Tily's Keynes's General Theory, the Rate of Interest and 'Keynesian' Economics: Keynes Betrayed:

"Tily (chapter 4) carefully documents how this Robertson version of 'Keynesian' economics succeeded in squeezing out Keynes' vision. The model behind Robertson’s vision is instantly recognisable by all students of economics today and consists of the idea that there exists a unique long-run equilibrium around which the economy fluctuates during booms and recessions... Apart from the fact that Keynes ... described rigidities as the classical explanation for unemployment, Tily makes it clear that this 'Keynesian' interpretation overlooks entirely that Keynes was concerned with the existence of multiple long-period equilibria in the General Theory. -- Colin Rogers, "Keynes vs the Keynesians: Keynes Rediscovered", History of Economics Review, Winter 2008.

I have never quite understood the idea that Keynesian policy is about helping the economy reach equilibrium quicker. I thought The Arrow-Debreu model of intertemporal equilibria was the canonical neoclassical explanation of prices. That model doesn't allow for out-of-equilibrium behavior in real time. By now, it should be trivial to create models of multiple long-run equilibria. Keynes' explanation for multiple long-run equilibria, I think, had to do with long-run expectations - each state of expectations creates a different (set of?) long run equilibrium.

Ian Steedman reviews another volume in Hayek's collected works:

"Laurence White has been zealous in providing editorial footnotes to Hayek’s text and many of his notes are indeed helpful... Some footnotes seem to be quite unnecessary explications... The simple observation by Hayek, that the choice of production method may change in response to a relative input price change, is made the occasion of a long and irrelevant note on the 'economics of socialism' debate..., while an editorial reference to the 'reswitching controversy' cites a single discussion thereof – one by Leland Yeager! ... It might be felt here that Hayek’s text is being used for the promotion of ‘Austrian’ economics more generally." -- Ian Steedman on "F. A. Hayek. The Pure Theory of Capital. Volume 12 of the Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, History of Economics Review, Summer 2009.

Fred Lee's New History of Heterodox Economics

Frederick Lee has written a book: A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the Twentieth Century. I don't know if I'm going to purchase this Routledge book. I've read papers many of the chapters grew from.

Alex Haley and John Maynard Keynes: Self-Confident Authors

Alex Haley used to hang out at the Savoy, a local restraurant in Rome, NY. While writing Roots, he told the owner, "I am writing a book that is going to change how white people look at black people in America."

While writing The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Keynes had an argument with George Bernard Shaw about Marx. Keynes wrote to Shaw on 1 January 1935:

"...To understand my state of mind, however, you have to know that I believe myself to be writing a book on economic theory, which will largely revolutionise - not, I suppose, at once but in the course of the next ten years - the way the world thinks about economic problems. When my new theory has been duly assimilated and mixed with politics and feelings and passions, I can't predict what the upshot will be in its effects on actions and affairs. But there will be a great change, and, in particular, the Ricardian foundations of Marxism will be knocked away.

I can't expect you, or anyone else, to believe this at the present stage. But for myself I don't merely hope what I say, - in my own mind I'm quite sure."

I don't accept that Marx built on Say's Law, which is what Keynes refuted.

Notre Dame Faculty Senate Defends Academic Freedom

Maybe Phil Mirowski and his more interesting colleagues will be able to pursue their vocation.

Garrison Orally On Reswitching

The following is from the Question and Answer session for Roger Garrison's recent lecture, "Macroeconomics: The Boom and Bust Cycle" (starting at about 59:29):

Audience member: "Can you reconcile using Hayekian triangles with reswitching and [unclear]?"

Garrison: "Yeah. The question is, 'How do you reconcile the Hayekian triangle with the Cambridge Capital Controversy, which involves capital-reswitching and technique reversing. I got that backwards - isn't it technique reswitching and capital reversing. Let me just take a poll here. How many have heard of the Cambridge Capital Controversy and know about technique reswitching and capital-reversing? Good, OK, good. One guy.

Let me just give you a standing-on-one-foot explanation. Capital theorists in Cambridge - this is Cambridge, England - argued that Böhm-Bawerk didn't have it quite right. His math was too simple, and if you allow for inputs and outputs to be expressed by polynomials, instead of rectangles or linear inputs, you find that the production process could lengthen or shorten with the change in the interest rate. If the interest rate falls, maybe it will shorten, or maybe it will lengthen. And you don't know. You have to look at the math and see how it turns out.

And the way the math turns out, there are only trivial exceptions - very small exceptions to the proposition that a low interest rate encourages long-term investment. You can come up with counterexamples, but even Cambridge capital-theorists, like Joan Robinson - she wrote an article, "The Unimportance of Reswitching" - just the magnitude doesn't amount to anything. If you read Hayek's Pure Theory of Capital, he acknowledges that, yes, yes, you can have funny profiles that seem to run counter to the general proposition that a low interest rate encourages long-term production. But those are very trivial. I've published articles on this. I can give you a link to one. But one thing I observed is that to get numbers where the reswitching is visible to the naked eye, you have to have the interest rate changing from 100% to 50%, or something like that, which itself suggests how minor that distinction is.

There are actually more fundamental criticisms that are based on how the Cambridge capital theorists measure roundaboutness. And the Austrians don't really measure it. They don't need to measure it. It's enough to show you the pictures. You saw the picture of the Research and Development chemist. You saw the picture of the retail clerk. That's what we are talking about, however you describe that mathematically. So I think, economically, that just doesn't work.

There are economists - Post Keynesians are the main ones - who throw up that Cambridge Capital Controversy as a killer of Austrian Business Cycle theory. They see that as the basis for just dismissing Austrian Business Cycle theory, but I think with very little justification."

References:

• Roger M. Garrison (1979) "Comment: Waiting in Vienna", in Time, Uncertainty and Disequilibrium: Exploration of Austrian Themes (ed. by M. J. Rizzo), D. C. Heath and Company
• Roger M. Garrison (2006) "Reflections on Reswitching and Roundaboutness", in Money and the Markets: Essays in Honor of Leland Yeager (ed. by R. Kopl), New York:Routledge.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory As Uninteresting And Esoteric

I have been unsuccessful in getting my refutation of Austrian Business Cycle Theory accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. My latest publically available version is downloadable from SSRN. I have had a later version rejected a couple of weeks ago. This version's references include Roger Garrison's 2006 "Reflections on Reswitching and Roundaboutness". I hope quoting an extract from a review is acceptable, since some might find this of interest:

"Hayek had washed his hands of the triangles [that ground his theory of the trade cycle] long before the ink was dry on his Pure Theory of Capital... Modern Austrian school economists like Roger Garrison still find the triangle-logic compelling, but I have the impression that, with the possible exception of Leland Yeager’s 1976 Economic Inquiry paper, no systematic attempt has been made to show that Austrian economics is immune to the capital critique; the arguments are intuitive rather than carefully drawn. (Even Yeager’s piece struck me when I read it, many years ago, as largely intuitive.) ...the arguments had never been put forward in a robust way..."

Classical Cross Dual Dynamics

"The actual price at which any commodity is commonly sold is called its market price. It may either be above, or below, or exactly the same with its natural price.

The market price of every particular commodity is regulated by the proportion between the quantity which is actually brought to market, and the demand of those who are willing to pay the natural price of the commodity, or the whole value of the rent, labour, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither. Such people may be called the effectual demanders, and their demand the effectual demand; since it may be sufficient to effectuate the bringing of the commodity to market...

...The natural price, therefore, is, as it were, the central price, to which the prices of all commodities are continually gravitating...

The whole quantity of industry annually employed in order to bring any commodity to market, naturally suits itself in this manner to the effectual demand. It naturally aims at bringing always that precise quantity thither which may be sufficient to supply, and no more than supply this demand." - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter VII

1.0 Introduction
Contemporary economists have elaborated Smith's metaphor of the gravitational attraction of market prices to natural prices. Elaborations consist of formal models of cross-dual dynamics.

Systems of equations describing prices and quantitites are dual systems in the post Sraffa/von Neumann tradition. Dynamics are cross dual when changes in prices respond to quantities and changes in quantities respond to prices. In particular, industries expand in which rates of profits are high and contract in industries in which profits are low. And prices fall in industries in which the quantity supplied exceeds the effectual demand. Prices rise in industries in which the quantity supplied is below the effectual demand.

Dupertuis and Sinha (2009) is one immediate impetus for my setting out this model of the reallocation of labor for a given wage. I don't think I thoroughly understand models of cross-dual dynamics. I think they are of interest for exploring the possible dynamics of market prices in competitive capitalist economies. I don't see that they are directly empirically applicable. For that, one needs to worry about markup prices and the degree of utilization of capacity in various industries.

2.0 Natural Prices
The data of our problem are:

• The n x n input-output matrix A, where n is the number of industries and a_{i, j} is the amount of the ith commodity used as input per unit output of the jth industry
• The n-element row vector a₀ of labor inputs, where a_{0, j} is the amount of person-hours hired per unit output in the jth industry
• The money wage w_given
• The composition of net output as expressed in the n-element column vector c_given.

This is a circulating capital model in which all production processes use up their inputs in a year. Labor is assumed to be paid their wages at the end of the year. Only economies capable of producing a surplus product are considered. For simplicity, assume Constant Returns to Scale (CRS) and that every commodity is basic, in Sraffa's sense. This section considers the problem of finding:

• The natural prices, as expressed in the n-element row vector p^*
• The corresponding wages w^*
• The corresponding rate of profits r^*
• The effectual demand as expressed in the n-element column vector of gross quantities q^*
• The n-element column vector of net quantities y^*.

In the system of natural prices, the same rate of profits are made in every industry:

p^* A(1 + r^*) + a₀ w^* = p^*

I take the net output as the numeraire.

p^* y^* = 1

In my formulation here, the wage is taken as a given ratio of the net output:

w^* = w_given

The above equations comprise the price system for natural prices.

Net outputs and gross outputs are related by the following equation:

y^* = q^* - A q^* = (I - A) q^*

where I is the identity matrix. I normalize the units of labor such that one unit is employed throughout the economy:

a₀ q^* = 1

Finally, the net output is assumed to be in the specified proportions. That is, there exists a positive constant k such that

y^* = k c_given

The above systems of equations are sufficient to determine gross and net effectual demands, natural prices, and the distribution of income. (An alternative specification would take the composition of gross output as given, instead of the net output. Perhaps outputs should be in units of Sraffa's standard commodity.)

3.0 Initial Condititions
The problem in the remaining sections is to define a dynamic process for the quantities produced q(t) and the market prices p(t) for t = 0, 1, 2, ... The initial quantities q(0) and market prices p(0) are givens. For the sake of the argument, I consider a dynamic process in which the amount of labor employed and the value of net output are invariant. So the initial quantities and prices must satisfy the following equations:

a₀ q(0) = 1

p(0) y(0) = p(0)(I - A)q(0) = 1

4.0 Reallocation of Labor
Define r_average(t), the average rate of profits for the economy as a whole at time t:

r_average(t) = [p(t)(I - A - a₀ w_given)q(t)]/[p(t) A q(t)]

The numerator in the expression on the right hand side above is the value of the surplus product remaining in the capitalists' possession after replacing the means of production and paying laborers their wages. The denominator is the value of the capital goods advanced.

Typically, the rate of profits will vary from the average among the industries. The rate of profits for the jth industry at time t is:

r_j(t) = [p_j(t) - p(t) a_{., j} - a_{0, j} w_given]/[p(t) a_{., j}]

where a_{., j} is the jth column of the input-output matrix A.

Define R_average(t) to be the n-element column vector with each element equal to the average rate of profits. Let R(t) be the n-element column vector with each element being the rate of profits for the corresponding sector.

Now dynamics of the quantities of produced commodities can be specified:

q(t + 1) = [1/f₁(t)]{[R(t) - R_average(t)] + q(t)}

Or, in terms of scalars:

q_i(t + 1) = [1/f₁(t)]{[r_i(t) - r_average(t)] + q_i(t)}

where

f₁(t) = 1 + a₀[R(t) - R_average(t)]

The denominator f₁(t) above is a normalization that ensures the quantity of labor employed is always unity. The numerator ensures that the more the rate of profits in a sector exceeds the average, the faster that sector will expand in comparison with other sectors. (An alternative formulation might compare the rate of profits in each industry with the rate of profits r^* in the system of natural prices.)

5.0 Price Changes
Price dynamics are here set out more directly:

p(t + 1) = [1/f₂(t)]{p(t) - [q^T(t) - q^*T]}

where x^T is the transpose of the vector x. In terms of scalars, prices are given by:

p_i(t + 1) = [1/f₂(t)]{p_i(t)- [q_i(t) - q^*_i]}

The time series f₂(t) is defined as follows:

f₂(t) = [q^*T - q^T(t)](I - A)q(t + 1)} + p(t)(I - A)q(t + 1)

The denominator f₂(t) above is, again, a normalization condition. In this case, the normalization ensures the value of the net output is equal to unity. Since the composition of net output typically changes over the course of the process, the real wage varies in terms of any fixed commodity basket. It does remain, however, a given ratio of the net output.

6.0 Conclusion
I have set out above a model of a dynamic process, but without an analysis of its properties. An obvious theorem is that if initial quantities and prices happen to be equal to the effectual demands and natural prices, they will be left unchanged by the dynamics of market adjustments. In other words, the natural system is a stationary point of this dynamic process.

An interesting question is the trajectory of market prices, given an arbitrary starting point. I don't expect the process to necessarily converge to the natural system. At this point, I don't have any numeric examples of limit cycles or chaotic behavior. A failure of local stability doesn't bother me; I have often thought of Sraffa's work as pointing towards the possibility of complex dynamics arising in models of capitalist economies.

Questions of structural stability are of interest as well. Do dynamic properties of the system depend on the level of wages, especially if one introduces into the model a choice of technique? And how do the answers to these questions vary, if at all, with alternative modeling assumptions, some of which I have indicated? I do not know that the literature has reached definitive answers to these questions.

Update (28 January 2010): I have redefined the dynamics above in a way that seems more reasonable to me.

References

• Michel-Stéphane Dupertuis and Ajit Sinha, "A Sraffian Critique of the Classical Notion of Centre of Gravitation", Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 33 (2009): 1065-1087.

Upcoming URPE Conferences

Chris Pepin informs us that the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE) will participate in the upcoming Eastern Economics Association (EEA) conference. The conference will be held at the Loews Philadelphia Hotel, February 26 - 28. A program is available. This year is the 50th anniversary of the publication of Sraffa's book.

URPE is also participating in the Left Forum, on March 19-21 at Pace University.

Elsewhere

• Eric Rauchway tells us about the Bretton Woods conference, where John Maynard Keynes showed that some economists could be more useful than dentists.
• David Ruccio reprints a cartoon by B. Deutsch making fun of economists prefering a supposedly elegant theory of the minimum wage to empirical results falsifying the theory.
• Bill Mitchell has a negative view of Greg Mankiw's textbook.

Skimming Moshe Adler

A few weeks ago, in a bookstore a couple of hundred miles away from here, I skimmed Moshe Adler's Economics for the Rest of Us: Debunking the Science that Makes Life Dismal. I did not purchase it because I am already too far behind in my reading. It is targeted for those outside the economics profession.

It is a short and approachable book that, as I recall, falls into two main parts.

The first part is about the mainstream economist's concept of (Pareto) efficiency. I hopped over this section fairly quickly, since I see no need to be strongly guided by this criterion in making policy decisions. I gather Adler agrees.

The second part is about income distribution, the theory of marginal productivity, and wages. Adler compares and contrasts neoclassical theory and the more empirically applicable classical theory. If I read this book in more depth, I would probably have some caveats about Adler's interpretation of the classical economists and his assignment to them of one (non-Malthusian) theory of wages. Adler recognizes that in a theory in which wages are determined by well-behaved supply and demand functions for labor, the imposition of higher wages results in less employment. Less security and less employment is a bad thing for many members of that vast majority in capitalist societies who depend on income from labor to live. On the other hand, when wages are the result of class struggle, as in Adam Smith, for example, the theory does not predict that unions, minimum wages, less "flexible" labor markets will result in less employment. And, despite the poppycock mainstream economists teach, that is the world we live in.

I agree with the author. Economics took a mostly wrong turning more than a century ago. I don't think that this book will convince many mainstream economists. If Adler wanted to convince mainstream economists, he would have had to written a more impenetrable book. I think Adler does address some of the questions raised by the current global economic crisis.

(I realize I am behind in responding to comments on previous posts.)

The First Communist

One can find all sorts of things on the internet, such as T-shirts.

And one can find lots of silliness: "Why Jesus Christ is Not a Communist".

Hat tip: My friend Lucas.

Leontief's Work As Applied Sraffianism

Sraffa's critique is formulated in terms of physical quantity flows among industries and labor inputs into each industry. From this data, institutional assumptions, and, for example, the rate of profits, Sraffa deduces the set of constant prices that allow for the smooth reproduction of a capitalist economy.

Leontief independently developed the theory of Input-Output (I-O) analysis, and national income accounts include I-O accounts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis maintains I-O accounts for the United States.

A body of work exists in which the national income accounts are used to examine empirical questions. Sometimes the output of each industry is normalized to one physical unit of each industry, thereby allowing the national accounts to be thought of as closer to Sraffa’s data. Much of this work can be seen as classical in approach, not marginalist. Benjamin H. Mitra-Kahn's "Debunking the Myths of Computable General Equilibrium Models" (2008) shows that the classical nature of one such body of empirical work is often disguised by tendentious and incorrect history.

So Sraffa’s work is empirically applicable, although his own intentions seem to have been more focused on criticism.

Mainstream Economists Unable To Discuss Economics

Over on Economics Job Market Rumors, an anonymous poster asks:

"Despite the neoclassicals admitting that the Post-Keynesians were right, why has the impact of heterogeneous capital on an economy left out of the macro models?"

It will not surprise me if he or she receives no coherent answer. I recently had a chance to skim the transcripts of David Colander's interviews with graduate students at the "best" economics departments in the United States. These are in his book The Making of an Economist Redux. The following phrases seem no connote nothing to such students: "Cambridge Capital Controversy", "Neoclassical Economics", and "Post Keynesian Economics". One student responded to a question about Joan Robinson by asking, "Who's that?" The best students seem to realize that they will have to get an education by themselves in their "spare" time after they receive their doctorate.

Minimum Wages In The U.K.

The Australian Fair Pay Commission's Minimum Wage Research Forum met in Melbourne on 30 and 31 October 2008. Stephen Machin summarized recent experience in the United Kingdom (in the 2008 Minimum Wage Research Forum Proceedings, Volume 1).

Minimum wages were set by industry in the United Kingdom up until 1993. The wage councils were abolished in 1993, except for the Agriculture Wages Board which continues to this day. Outside of agriculture, the UK did not have a minimum wage between 1993 and 1999. From 1999 on, the National Minimum Wage was in effect in the UK, as recommended by the UK Low Pay Commission, established in 1997 by the newly elected Labour government. Notice that the trend in employment visually appears unaffected by the introduction of the national minimum wage and subsequent increases in it. The trend appears the same before as afterwards. This seems like disconfirmatory evidence to me of the simple neoclassical model of wages and employment as determined by supply and demand functions. Some of us know that model is without theoretical foundation anyways.

Hat tip to Bill Mitchell

Parallel Thoughts By Wittgenstein And Sraffa

Apparently Wittgenstein wrote the following in 1937:

"The origin and the primitive form of the language game is a reaction; only from this can more complicated forms develop.

Language - I want to say - is a refinement, 'in the beginning was the deed'." -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value (Translated by Peter Winch) (1980)

And Sraffa, I guess, wrote the following in the early 1930s:

"If the rules of language can be constructed only by observation, there can never be any nonsense said. This identifies the cause and the meaning of a word.

The language of birds, as well as the language of metaphysicians can be interpreted consistently in this way.

It is only a matter of finding the occasion on which they say a thing, just as one finds the occasion on which they sneeze.

And if nonsense is 'a mere noise' it certainly must happen, as sneeze, when there is cause: how can this be distinguished from its meaning?

We should give up the generalities and take particular cases, from which we started. Take conditional propositions: whan are they nonsense, and when are they not?" -- Piero Sraffa as quoted by Heinz D. Kurz, "'If some people looked like elephants and others like cats, or fish...' On the difficulties of understanding each other: the case of Wittgenstein and Sraffa", The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, V. 16, n. 2 (2009): pp. 361-374

Colander Testimony On Risks Modeling

Last September, the Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, a subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives heard testimony on the risks of financial modeling. I looked at David Colander's testimony.

Colander advocates modeling economies as complex dynamical systems. He thinks economists should be aware of the limitations of models. Macroeconomists, in settling on the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) model, failed to consider a wide range of models. The assumptions of the DSGE model do not fit the real world. (In objecting to the use of the "assumption" of the existence of a representative agent, I am on the side of such economists as Alan Kirman and Frank Hahn & Robert Solow.)

Colander discusses how mainstream economists are indoctrinated. Colander recommends that peer review for grants from the National Science Foundation for economics research include, "for example, physicists, mathematician[s], statisticans, and even business and govermental representatives".

This bit about the NSF reminds me of a story Paul Davidson tells:

"In 1980 I applied for a grant from the National Science Foundation to write International Money and the Real World... One of the [insider peer reviewers] had the most telling observation of them all. He said something like, 'It is true that Davidson has a very good track record and surprisingly good publications, but he marches to a different drummer. If he's marching to a different drummer, if his music is different, then he ought to get his own money and not use ours.'" -- Paul Davidson in J. E. King, Conversations with Post Keynesians (1995)

Davidson did not get the grant.

Weird Science II

A bit from Avatar reminds me of Ursula K. LeGuin's "Vaster Than Empires and More Slow", a short story republished in her collection The Wind's Twelve Quarters (1975). LeGuin postulates a world in which nodes in tree roots act like synapses. The plant life is one sentience. Maybe even vines and spores partake in it. As before, a cultural work reminds me of some science:

• The longest lived thing is arguably Pando, a grove of aspens in Utah that seems to be one plant, connected at the roots and propagating through runners like strawberries or mrytle.
• Or maybe it is an instance of the fungus Armillaria bulbosa in Oregon.

A Wikipedia article lists other such organisms, for what it's worth. (The references in this post are reminders for me to look up sometime.)

Wage-Rate Of Profits Curves

1.0 Introduction
I have written about so-called factor price curves and frontiers in many posts. They are so-called because the interest rate is not a price of any factor of production. In this post, I use the more neutral expressions "Wage-Rate of Profits Curve" and "Wage-Rate of Profits Frontier". I consider the concepts denoted by these terms to be elements of mathematical economics that arise, in particular, in the analysis of steady states.

2.0 Derivation of a Wage-Rate of Profits Curve
Consider an economy in which n commodities are produced. Each commodity j is produced in a corresponding industry in which it is the sole output of a single process. This process:

• Requires inputs of labor and commodities. These inputs are represented as a_{0, j} person-years per unit output and a_{i, j} units of the ith commodity per unit output.
• Exhibits Constant Returns to Scale (CRS).
• Requires a year to complete.
• Totally uses up its commodity inputs.

A technique consists of a process for each of the n industries. The technique is represented by the row vector a₀ of direct labor coefficients and the square Leontief Input-Output matrix A. Assume:

• Each commodity enters either directly or indirectly into the production of all commodities. That is, all commodities are basic in the sense of Sraffa.
• The economy is viable. That is, there exists a level of operation of all processes such that the outputs can replace the commodities used up in their production and leave a surplus product to be paid out in the form of wages and profits.
• Wages are paid at the end of the year.
• The same rate of profits is earned on advances in all industries.

The assumptions of CRS and of all commodities being basic are made for ease of exposition.

Under these assumptions, the constant prices that allow the economy to smoothly reproduce satisfy the following system of n equations:

p A (1 + r) +w a₀ = p

where p is the row vector of prices, w is the wage, and r is the rate of profits. Given the rate of profits, this is a linear system in n + 1 variables. The last equation imposed in the model sets the value of the numeraire to unity:

p e = 1

where e is a column vector denoting the units of each commodity that comprise the numeraire. Only solutions in which all prices are positive and the wage is non-negative are considered.

The price equation can be transformed into:

w a₀ = p [I - (1 + r)A]

where I is the identity matrix. Or:

w a₀ [I - (1 + r)A]^-1 = p

where the assumption of viability guarantees the existence of the inverse for all rates of profits between zero and a maximum rate of profits. Right multiply both sides of the above equation by the numeraire:

w a₀ [I - (1 + r)A]^-1 e = p e = 1

The wage-rate of profits curve for the technique is then:

w = 1/{a₀ [I - (1 + r)A]^-1 e}

3.0 Properties of Wage-Rate of Profits Curves
The Wage-Rate of Profits Curve for a technique, under the assumptions above, has the following properties:

• There is a finite maximum rate of profits for which the wage is zero. (If no commodity were basic, this maximum would not be finite.)
• There is a maximum wage for which the rate of profits is zero.
• The wage-rate of profits curve is strictly decreasing between the rate of profits of zero and the maximum rate of profits.
• The wage rate of profits curve can be both convex to the origin and concave to the origin. (If the number of commodities n is greater than 2, the convexity can vary throughout the curve.)
• If the vector of direct labor coeffients is a left-hand eigenvector of the Leontief Input-Output matrix, the wage-rate of profits curve is a straight line, that is, affine. (This is Marx's case of equal organic composition of capitals.)
• If the numeraire is a right-hand eigenvector of the Leontief Input-Output matrix, the wage-rate of profits curve is affine. (This is the case of Sraffa's standard commodity.)

Figure 1 illustrates the wage-rate of profits curve for five techniques (α, β, δ, ε, and τ). Pasinetti uses π, not r, to denote the rate of profits. These curves are drawn under the assumption that the organic composition of capitals is not constant for any technique, and the numeraire is not the standard commodity for any of the techniques. Figure 1 also shows the wage-rate of profits frontier, formed from the outer envelope of all the wage-rate of profits curves for the individual techniques. This frontier is used to analyze the choice of technique for long-period, circulating capital models with single production.

Figure 1: The Frontier Formed From Factor-Price Curves (from Pasinetti (1977), p. 157)

Selected References

• Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori (1995) Theory of Production: A Long-Period Analysis, Cambridge University Press
• Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori "Production Theory: An Introduction"
• Luigi L. Pasinetti (1977) Lectures on the Theory of Production, Columbia University Press

Paul A. Samuelson, 1915-2009

I've been influenced by Samuelson's work. I've referenced him here on such topics as:

• Aggregate production functions
• Cambridge Capital Controversies, Joan Robinson, and Piero Sraffa
• Growth theory
• International trade, theory of
• Linear programming
• Marginal productivity theory
• Marxist economics
• Revealed preference theory

I don't think I've referenced him on overlapping generations models when I've used them. But I believe he originated such models.