| Back to Conference Home | Full List of Conference Papers |
Although it is almost unanimously ignored even by many branches of heterodoxy as well as by contemporary mainstream economics, value was once at the centre of economics and, later, has been persistently developed by Marxist political economy until today. Since value as such represents the material reproduction of the capitalist economy, the point of value theory is not to discuss if it is right or wrong as has often been the case, but to develop value to explain the evolving reality of the capitalist economy, and to extend it beyond its traditional terrains over to many aspects of the social as well as economic reproduction of capitalist relations.
The five panels organised here are devoted to such tasks. The first two panels are concerned with one of the traditional themes of value theory: that of measuring the economy. The first features different Marxist approaches to analysing the U.S. economy in the context of the current crisis, and the second touches upon a few important issues regarding such empirical studies from a methodological standpoint. The remaining three panels are more theoretical. Panels III and IV highlight the dynamics of capital accumulation and of capitalist competition, respectively. These are familiar themes of value theory, but the issues individual papers develop are least developed ones in each area. Lastly, in the fifth panel, such familiar but central categories of value theory as labour, ground rent, money and finance, and the production and realisation of value are to be revisited in a contemporary context.
| AUTHOR(s) | TITLE & ABSTRACT |
| Simon Mohun | What is the Current Crisis a Crisis of? |
| It is often claimed that crisis is a crisis of profitability. But the data do not support this for the crisis beginning in 2007. Examination of the historical record suggests that there are long swings in the macroeconomic rate of profit, and that serious crises are associated with turning points. Crises associated with falling profitability are typified by that in the period following the end of the ‘golden age’, from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. Indeed, this is the only ‘falling rate of profit’ crisis of the twentieth century. The contemporary crisis is quite different, being associated with a long term rise in the macroeconomic rate of profit. It is this feature, as well as its severity, which makes for meaningful comparison with the 1929-33 crisis. This suggests a periodisation of capitalism in which lack of regulation, the celebration of the free market, growth in inequality across many dimensions, weak labour movement institutions, and speculative excess are associated with periods of rising profitability. When the bubbles burst, a serious crisis ensues, and recovery is historically associated with Keynesian expansionism, national and international regulation, measures of egalitarianism, and industrial interventions by the state. The ensuing period of ‘social democracy’ is one of long run falling profitability, which culminates in a crisis that restores the free market and all of its works (thus 1979-82). Like 1929, the current crisis is a crisis at the top of a profitability swing, and like the Great Depression, requires some substantial form of social democratic renewal. | |
| Costas Passas | Productive and Unproductive labour in the Greek economy: 1970-2005 |
| This essay aims at measuring the productive and unproductive parts of labour in the Greek economy and in explaining their evolution for the years 1970 to 2005. To do so the methodology proposed by Shaikh and Tonak (1994) for the mapping between mainstream and Marxian categories is applied and refined for the Greek economy. A short historical account of the theoretical debate around productive and unproductive is also provided in order to clarify various misconceptions. | |
| Click here to read the full paper | |
| Dimitris Paitaridis | Empirical Estimates of Marxian Categories in Value and Market Price Terms: The Case of Japan, 1973–2006 |
| The purpose of this paper is to bring evidence on the behavior of Japanese economy for the period 1973-2006 and shed some light on the causes that triggered the 90’s recession. Our analysis is based on the estimation of crucial Marxian categories, expressed in value and market price terms, by using the distinction between productive and unproductive labor. We discuss methodological issues involved in the empirical estimations whilst we attempt to derive general conclusions about the trends of Marxian variables, whether are expressed in value or market price terms. | |
| Click here to view the full paper | |
| AUTHOR(s) | TITLE & ABSTRACT |
| George Economakis, Alexis Anastasiadis and Maria Markaki | An Empirical Investigation on the US Economic Performance from 1929 to 2008 |
| The core of the Marxian theory on economic crises is detected in Marx’s theory of the falling profit rate (‘The Law of the Tendencial Fall in the Rate of Profit’), owing to the rising organic composition of capital or the decrease of the rate of surplus-value, due to rising real wages (‘over-accumulation of capital’). On the basis of this theoretical admission a research on US economic performance from 1929 to 2008 has been undertaken. The findings of this study indicate that US capitalism seems to suffer from a weakness to achieve high profit rates. The recent financial crisis is thus a possibly result of a ‘plethora’ of the profit seeking capitals in the financial sector. | |
| Click here to view the full paper | |
| Sergio Cámara Izquierdo | Short and Long-Term Dynamics of the U.S. Profit Rate in the Context of the Current Crisis |
| The paper analyses the short and long-term dynamics of the U.S. profit rate in the postwar era and, in particular, in the context of the current crisis; therefore, the current crisis is characterized from the profitability trends and fluctuations. In the long-term, Marxian theory postulates a tendentially falling profit rate as the main cause of structural crisis of over-accumulation. However, it is argued that the current crisis has not been preceded by such a tendency in the U.S. economy; rather there has been a recovery of the profit rate. However, the crisis can be characterized from the structural tendencies of profitability and accumulation, essentially from the relation of mediation between them during the neoliberal era. Therefore, it can be structurally characterized as a crisis of neoliberalism. Secondly, a short-term downfall of the profit rate, associated with the cyclical movement of the labor cost and the interest rate, triggered the cyclical crisis of the U.S. economy that resulted in the bursting of the housing bubble and international financial crisis. | |
| Click here to view the full paper | |
| Victor Kasper, Jr. | Simulations from a Marxist Macroeconomic Model with Implications for the Stock, Bond and Real Estate Markets in the US 2008-2010 |
| This paper summarizes the use of our interactive macroeconomic Marxist based model to assess the financial and economic crises of 2008-2010. It represents an update and refinement of research presented at a conference in 2009. The model simulates value production in the US by considering the conditions of production that shape value creation. The model links surplus value created to the stock, bond and real estate markets. With the simulation model we estimate value created and its composition into constant capital, variable capital and surplus value for the U.S. We demonstrate how the simulation results can theoretically link conditions of production and work relations to the emergence of fictitious capital. We compare our simulation estimates of financial aggregates (equity, bond and real estate aggregates) to empirical counterparts from the Flow of Funds. Our results demonstrate how productive relations impact on the magnitude of fictitious capital and the potential for a financial meltdown. The main advantage demonstrated is that the model facilitates the assessment of changing conditions of production (length of working day, number of working days per year in the productive sectors) on conventional macroeconomic financial aggregates under multiple scenarios. | |
| Click here to view the full paper | |
| AUTHOR(s) | TITLE & ABSTRACT |
| Paul Zarembka | Low Surplus Value Historically Required for Accumulation, Seen in a Model Derived from Marx |
| In Volume I of Capital, Marx offers actual data from a Manchester spinning factory describing that business. In Volume II, he offers schemes of reproduction to help understand accumulation of capital while mentioning numbers which actually suggest correlation to the spinning factory data. Nevertheless, Marx seems to slide over the costs of new machinery when analyzing accumulation, instead focusing on wear and tear (depreciation). In this paper, we offer a modeling of accumulation that takes account of modern estimates of the composition of capital, i.e., the relation of labor time invested in constant capital compared to the labor time employed with that constant capital, relying principally upon U.S. and Canadian estimates. We find empirically that the composition of capital fluctuates but does not show much trend. We also consider levels of the rate of exploitation and of utilization of surplus value required for achieving actual historical levels of accumulation of capital, and include consideration of the turnover of capital. We find that only a small portion of surplus value, perhaps ten percent, is required for actually achieved accumulation. This suggests that a focus on the utilization of surplus value for the accumulation of capital misses vast other terrains for the utilization of surplus value. | |
| Click here to view the full paper | |
| Fiona Tregenna | Sectoral Structure, Activity Specificity, and Deindustrialisation: A Marxian Analysis |
| The paper develops an original Marxian approach to sectoral structure and sectoral change, and the implications of such changes for accumulation and growth. A classification of activities according to their relationships to the production and distribution of surplus-value and to capital is developed, and the sectoral classification used in national accounts is mapped onto this. A Marxian approach to the growth specificity of activities is proposed, in which both sectoral and organisational/technological characteristics are relevant to an activity’s potential for generating relative surplus-value and for increasing the rate of accumulation. The analysis sees something special about manufacturing, but in a more complex way than in a Kaldorian or structuralist approach. An original Marxian conceptualisation of deindustrialisation is put forward. | |
| Click here to read the full paper | |
| Seretis Stergios and Persefoni Tsaliki | The Marxian Mechanism of Value Transfers |
| This paper attempts to present the mechanism of transfers of value in a Marxist context of analysis. Although the discussion on transfer of values is extensive in the Marxist tradition under the unequal exchange approach presented by Mandel, Emmanuel, Amin, etc. we argue that the focus of analysis on transfers of value should be based on competition theory. Hence, we discuss and present the Marxist notion of competition that is competition between and within industries. In addition, we show that the notion of regulating capital is prominent for the synthesis of the two moments of competition and it provides the ground on which any discussion upon transfer of values should be based on. The reason is that the concept of regulating capital is intrinsically connected to the discussion about the dominant technique and the formation of prices of production which in turn determine the inflows or outflows of values within an industry, between industries and by extension between economies. Hence, any attempt to describe the transfer of values should inevitably rely on the mechanism upon which the formation of prices of production is based. This result comes in direct conflict with the neoclassical tradition according to which the exchange at the long run equilibrium prices establishes equal exchange and convergence. | |
| AUTHOR(s) | TITLE & ABSTRACT |
| Persefoni Tsaliki and Lefteris Tsoulfidis | Notes on Dominant Technique |
| The focal point of this paper is the notion of the dominant technique and its treatment in classical and neoclassical theories of value. Our argument is that neither the average nor the minimum cost production are necessarily identified with the dominant technique in an industry. The dominant technique is in fact approximated with the type of firms where expansion or contraction of accumulation actually takes place and in this sense the dominant is perceived as marginal technique used by firms entering (leaving), and, therefore, expanding (contracting) industry’s supply. Such a concept is absolutely consistent with the classical theory of value and is inconsistent with the neoclassical (Marshallian) theory. | |
| John Weeks | [Money] The Theoretical and Empirical Credibility of Commodity Money |
| The recent extreme instability in financial markets demonstrated the inadequacy of the mainstream treatment of the relationship between the money economy and the underlying production base (the "real economy"). This inadequacy has stimulated interest in non-neoclassical treatments of money, which has given fresh importance to understanding the possible role of a money commodity in the financial system. This paper first demonstrates that the most fundamental function of monetary theory, an explanation of the "general price level", can be provided through only two analytical mechanisms, quantity-based valueless money or a money commodity which is unique. It then demonstrates that the quantity-based explanation is theoretically unsound even by neoclassical logic. This is followed by a demonstration that the theoretical argument for commodity-based money is analytically consistent. This theoretical superiority of commodity-based monetary theory has had little practical impact because of a perceived empirical absurdity of the commodity money hypothesis. The final analytical section demonstrates the prima facie credibility of a link between gold and aggregate prices in the United States since the end of World War II. This credibility should motivate Marxists and other critics of mainstream economics to treat seriously commodity-based monetary theory. | |
| Click here to read the full paper | |
| Heesang Jeon | Value, Use Value, Needs and the Social Division of Labour |
| In a society where commodity production is generalised, private labour is not for self-sufficiency, but for creating products that are socially useful. Labour appears to be private because decisions about production, especially what and how many to produce, are up to each individual. But it is also true that these decisions are conditioned and determined by the social division of labour. The specificity of commodity production is that social labour takes the form of private labour whilst not every private labour is counted as social labour. Given that production is primarily about creating socially useful products, the social division of labour in the sphere of production is more fundamental than exchange which mediates distribution of products. Marx argues that value is created or produced in the sphere of production by social labour and realised in the sphere of exchange. However, this does not mean that all the labours performed in the sphere of production create value. If new products are developed and introduced but fail to be sold in the market, these products do not have value because they are not socially useful. It is not that failure to be sold makes them socially useless. Rather, they fail to be exchanged because they are not socially useful though this does not preclude the possibility that they are exchanged even if they are not useful. The sphere of exchange can only reveal, but not with perfect certainty, whether a product is socially useful or not. In other words, the role of exchange is confined to the realisation of pre-existing value. | |
| Click here to read the full paper | |
| AUTHOR(s) | TITLE & ABSTRACT |
| Marco Boffo | [Labour and Knowledge] Labour, Production of Knowledge and Use of Knowledge in Production: Insights from Software on the Immaterial Labour and Cognitive Capitalism Debates |
| Contemporary capitalism is increasingly characterised by the centrality of knowledge, information and immaterial and non-rival goods in general. Such evolution in economic and social reality is paralleled by developments in economic theory, policy design and rhetoric. In reaction to the often uncritical tone of the mainstream literature across the social sciences, a new paradigm has developed that seeks to recast the analysis of contemporary capitalism in terms of the material processes in action. Such a debate has centred around the concepts of ‘immaterial labour’, ‘general intellect’ and, more recently, ‘cognitive capitalism’ as proposed and developed by the school of Italian post-workerist Marxism in its encounter with French thought (post-Structuralism and the Regulation School). The aim of this paper is to assess the shortcomings of this literature in understanding the place of knowledge in contemporary capitalism drawing from a framework of analysis inspired by Marx, Braverman, and Sohn-Rethel. Software being the immaterial good par excellence, the study of software production and software use in production is proposed as a benchmark to assess the different positions in the debate. | |
| [Paper forthcoming in a revised form in special issue of the International Journal of Management Philosophy and Concepts 2011 vol. 5(4)] | |
| Joon Park | [Ground Rent] Revisiting Marxian Ground-Rent Theory for Urban Context |
| The purpose of this paper is to review Marxian ground rent theory for urban context especially for urban residential sector. This could provide a wider arena for futher debate over mechanism of capital accumulation in bulit environment. Firstly, it is argued that product of land is not building itself but labour reproduction in urban residential context based on the investigation on production phase in land. Secondly, controversial condition on Absolute rent is reviewed. The condition of low organic composition of captial is critically reviewed and other economic condition which enables the appropriation of Absolute rent is suggested. Thirdly, in the relationship between Absolute rent and Monopoly rent, it is found that differentiation and emulation process between capitalist lessees seeking the two rents have been an impetus of urban development. Fourthly, it is found that combination of Absolute rent and Differential rent is the basic form of ground-rent in urban context as Differential rent type 2 and Monopoly rent are not permanent types of rent. Fifthly, existence of different potential combinations of rents in a site is suggested as an impetus of redevelopment of the site. Spatial fixity and durability of properties have created multiple types of housing submarkets in a city varing with Absolute rent by difference of preferences to housing type and Differential rent by spatial difference in labour reproduction. Capital investment for appropriating higher level of rents in upper housing group leads to shift of housing group resulting physical changes in a city. | |
| Click here to view the full paper | |