Friday, September 04, 2020

A Derivation Of Sraffa's First Equations

1.0 Introduction

Piero Sraffa wrote down his 'first equations' in 1927, for an economy without a surplus. D3/12/5 starts with these equations for an economy with three produced commodities. I always thought that they did not make dimensional sense, but Garegnani (2005) argues otherwise. This post details Garegnani's argument, albeit with my own notation.

There are arguments about how and why Sraffa started on his research project I do not address here. The question is how did he relate what he was doing at this early date to Marx. In addition to Garegnani, DeVivo, Gehrke, Gilibert, Kurz, and Salvadori are worth reading here.

2.0 Givens

I assume an economy in a self-replacing state in which n + 1 commodities are produced.

  • c0,0 is the input of the first commodity used in producing the output of the first industry.
  • (c., 0)T = [c1,0, c2,0, ..., cn,0] are the inputs of the remaining n commodities used in producing the output of first industry.
  • c0 = [c0,1, c0,2, ..., c0,n] are the inputs of the first commodity used in producing the output of the remaining industries
  • The element ci,j, i, j = 1, 2, ..., n, of the matrix C is the input of the ith commodity used in producing the output of the jth industry.
  • q0 = is the quantity produced of the first commodity.
  • (q)T = [q1, q2, ..., cn] are the outputs of the remaining n commodities used in producing the output of first industry.

All quantities are given in physical units. I abstract from fixed capital; all inputs are used up in the production of the outputs. Table 1 presents these parameters for the first example in the first chapter in Sraffa 1960.

Table 1: The Example from Sraffa (1960), Chapter 1
InputIndustry
IronWheat
Ironc0, 0 = 8 tons ironc0 = [12 tons iron]
Wheatc., 0 = [120 quarters wheat]C = [280 quarters wheat]
Outputq0 = 20 tons ironq = [400 quarters wheat]

The following must hold for economy to be in a self-replacing state:

qi = ci,0 + ci,1 + ... + ci,n, i = 0, 2, ..., n

All quantities are non-negative. The economy must hang together in some sense. In Sraffa's terminology, all commodities are basic.

3.0 Coefficients of Production

I like to think of the coefficients scaled for unit output in each industry. Accordingly, define:

a0, 0 = c0, 0/q0
(a., 0)i = (c., 0)i/qj, i = 1, 2, ..., n
(a0)j = (c0)j/qj, j = 1, 2, ..., n
(A)i,j = (C)i,j/qj, i, j = 1, 2, ..., n
4.0 All Quantities Measured in Unit Outputs of the First Industry

The given inputs can be thought of as produced in the previous year. The amount of, say, iron directly used as input in producing other commodities is (a0 q). Table 2 indicates how much iron is needed as input in all previous years.

Table 2: Iron Inputs for Other Commodities
YearIron
0a0 q
1a0 A q
2a0 (A)2q
......
na0 (A)nq
......

Even though my notation picks out the first commodity, there is nothing special about it. Suppose some commodity is selected. Let v0 be the quantity of this commodity needed directly and indirectly to produce a unit of the first commodity. Let v be the quantities of this commodity needed directly and indirectly to produce each of the remaining commodities. v0 and v must satisfy the following system of n + 1 linear equations:

v0 a0, 0 + v a., 0 = v0
v0 a0 + v A = v

For a non-trivial solution to exist, the determinant of the matrix in Table 3 must be zero, which it is in the case pf the Sraffa example.

Table 3: A Matrix
1 - a0, 0 = (3/5) tons-a0 = [(-3/100) tons]
-a., 0 = [-6 quarters]I - A = [(3/10) quarters]

I set v0 to unity. The amount of this commodity used directly and indirectly in the production of all other commodities is easily found:

v = a0(I - A)-1

5.0 Rescaling the Givens

I then rescale the givens.

b0, 0 = v0 c0, 0
bi, 0 = vi (c., 0)i, i = 1, 2, ..., n
b0, j = v0 (c0)j, j = 1, 2, ..., n
bi, j = vi ci, j, i, j = 1, 2, ..., n
s0 = v0 q0
si = vi qi, i = 1, 2, ..., n

Table 4 presents Sraffa's example with these calculations. Here, a unit of wheat is 10 quarters. That is, one ton iron is used directly and indirectly in producing 10 quarters of wheat.

Table 4: Sraffa's Example Again
InputIndustry
IronWheat
Ironb0, 0 = 8 tons ironb0 = [12 tons iron]
Wheatb., 0 = [12 tons wheat]B = [28 tons wheat]
Outputs0 = 20 tons irons = [40 tons wheat]

I then have Sraffa's 'first equations':

b0, j + b1, j + ... + bn, j = sj, j = 0, 1, ..., n

For the economy to be in a self-replacing state, the following must hold:

bi, 0 + bi, 1 + ... + bi, n = si, i = 0, 1, ..., n

Even though I am adding together, say, quantities of iron and wheat, the dimensions are consistent.

6.0 A Re-interpretation

Suppose the first produced commodity is labor, not iron. c0, 0 becomes the amount of labor performed in households (outside the market) to reproduce the labor force. c., 0 is the commodity basket paid out in wages when the workers obtain all of the surplus product. a0 are the direct labor coefficients for each industry, and A is the Leontief input-output matrix. v is the vector of labor valus (also known as employment multipliers). Under the assumptions, prices of production are identical to labor values.

This model is descriptive. The givens do not show how required inputs might decrease with innovation or the formal and real subsumption of labor.

References
  • Garegnani, Pierangelo (2005) On a turning point in Sraffa's theoretic and interpretative position in the late 1920s. European Journal of the History of Economic Thouht 12 (3): 453-492.
  • Gehrke, Christian, Heinz D. Kurz, and Neri Salvadori (2019) On the 'origins' of Sraffa's production equations: A reply to de Vivo. Review of Ploitical Economy 31 (1): 100-114.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find suggesting the symmetry of Table 4. I seems as one could cut off from the "use value" the concrete part wheat and iron and just stay with the abstract ton. Maybe one pushes the argument too far if she speaks for a 60 ton output and a 60 ton capital...too homogeneous for my taste.

Anonymous said...

One interesting topic would be substitute wheat for another commodity that like copper that can be more comparable with iron being both metals. Then we can covert mass into energy to get a common substance using Einstein E=mc2. From this perspective Marxian common substance sometimes called metaphysical is time and Babbage type common substance is energy measured in Joules or Cal or eV.

Robert Vienneau said...

My example does not have a surplus. But an extension of this mathematics gets one to say that when profit exists, labor, iron, and wheat are all exploited. Why is labor special?

I have written a bit about an energy theory of value. I suppose there is more empirical work along this line with Leontief input-output analysis.

Anonymous said...

There is actually some king of new attempt to disintricate labour exploitation from inputs exploitation at the UMass. I would argue about labour being special cos even if at the end of the day labour can be reduced to energy so can be every commodity, labour is the only one that can reverse entropy.

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper/290/

Xessilb said...

If the example is extended to an economy with a surplus what happens if all the pie is taken just by only one class? In other words Caps takes all the surplus or workers have it all. Do dimensions hold? Does symmetry come back?

Robert Vienneau said...

Dimensions hold. This is shown in a derivation of Sraffa's second equations.

I found Basu (2020) quite interesting. I am not sure that the authoritarian nature of the firm can be fully formalized. But I am also unclear about which variables in my favorite models to call labor and which to call labor power.

Anonymous said...

One of the first things that came to my mind when I first started reading PCMC were the use values of the first system without surplus. Those quarters of wheat sound strident for a reader of the twentieth century and even more for a reader outside of the anglo-saxon system of measures. I searched for a reason of picking those units establishing the connection with the meaning of Prelude to a Critique as marxian opus or suggesting a relation with that old forgotten classical tradition from that has buried at the end of the XIX century. But I ended thinking about the units at which commodities are valued as something capital even one could get rid of the riddle with constant returns if he thinks about use values units as Sraffa's Rosetta and the Standard System as not just a chopped real system but a real one whose units are changed but the system remains the same.

Anonymous said...

When I talk about the strident units I think for example in a system of first equations for example where instead of quarters we have pounds or castilian fanegas(it was equivalent to roughly 12 Imperial bushels) and we want to translate them to the International Standard System of Units. We can apply a scalar multiplier to the row so that the determinant remains with the same solution or we can apply a vector of multipliers (q1,1,1...,1) or (q1,q2,...,qn). We can even make up our personal non-standard system of units so that we avoid constant returns of scale and make our output vector (1,1,...,1).

At the time of the Classical economists no Convention du Mètre had been signed.

Anonymous said...

In a way there are two ways of transforming use values one is with multipliers that change just the unit and the other is with prices that change the whole use value by another used as numeraire.

Robert Vienneau said...

I am not sure I understand all of the above comments. But I think that even by chapter 1 of his book, Sraffa was doing something quite different from other economists.