Freeman, Alan (2006): An Invasive Metaphor: the Concept of Centre of Gravity in Economics.
Download (196kB) | Preview
This paper undertakes a critical examination of the concept of 'centre of gravity' as adapted by economics from classical mechanics, relating it to the idea of 'long-run' profits, prices and quantities, as presented in the work of the post-Sraffians.(1) It will also address the origin of this concept of 'long-run' in Marshall's distinction between long-run and short-run determinations of economic magnitudes.
It shows that economists have generally conceived of centre of gravity as a theoretical magnitude which is not observed, but around which observed magnitudes oscillate either randomly or in some deterministic manner; this much is generally agreed. This idea has, however, been interpreted in two distinct ways in the history of economic thought:
(1) as an attractor dynamically determined at each point in time by path-dependent historical processes which have led the economy to be in its present state.
(2) as a hypothetical static equilibrium state of the economy determined independent of history by its current exogenous parameters (utility, technical capacity, etc)
It demonstrates that these two ideas are necessarily distinct and that both must be taken into account in any pluralistic research programme. Mathematically the attractor of a variable is not in general equal to its hypothetical static equilibrium, except in highly restricted circumstances such as the absence of technical change. Moreover, again outside of exceptional circumstances, the divergence between the predictions of observed magnitudes given by the two approaches increases over time, so that it cannot even be accepted that one converges on the other. Error will therefore result if it is assumed a priori that (1) is identical to (2).
The fact that the two conceptions lead to different predictions does not decide that either one is correct. This should be determined empirically and therefore, an agreed empirical test should be established by the community of social scientists or, better still, society.
The paper will argue that, empirically, the 'test variable' against which both conceptions should be checked is the time average of the variables in question. This is not a distinct concept of 'centre of gravity' but an empirical observable.
In a pluralistic programme, the predictions of both conceptions should be evaluated against this proposed test variable.
The second part of the paper examines the common basis for the critical stance taken by both Keynes and Marx to the second conception, which is rooted in a common attitude to the relation between substance and accident, and a correspondingly similar conception of uncertainty. It will relate this to the work of Quetelet and the development of the statistical method in sociology which, it will argue, is rooted in an ontologically distinct conception of social magnitudes to that found in economics, closer to the concept which Keynes and Marx shared.
It argues that the post-Sraffian conception of long-run is based on a fallacious identification of these two distinct concepts, rendering the post-Sraffian approach equally incompatible with Keynes's and Marx's theories.
It argues that the post-Sraffian conception of centre of gravity is 'intrinsically antipluralistic' in that it depends absolutely on the conflation of two concepts which are in fact necessarily distinct, leading to the suppression of the non-equilibrium concept as an alternative to the scientific procedure of testing the predictions of both concepts against an observable.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Institution:||The University of Greenwich|
|Original Title:||An Invasive Metaphor: the Concept of Centre of Gravity in Economics|
|Subjects:||B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches
B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B51 - Socialist; Marxian; Sraffian
B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925 > B14 - Socialist; Marxist
B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B4 - Economic Methodology
B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals > B31 - Individuals
B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925 > B12 - Classical (includes Adam Smith)
|Depositing User:||Alan Freeman|
|Date Deposited:||21. Jan 2008 00:26|
|Last Modified:||14. Feb 2013 11:27|
Kurz, H. and Neri Salvadori (1995) Theory of Production: A Long-Period Analysis, Cambridge:CUP Duménil and Lévy (1993: p147): Sraffa (1965) Steedman () Pasinetti () Freeman and Carchedi (1995) Horváth, R. (1966) ‘Die Beitrage von Marx zur Grundlegung der statistischen Wissenschaft’. Wirtschaftwissenschaft No.1 p.60 Marx, K. Wage Labour and Capital. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm > accessed 4 June 2006 Glick, M. (1985). Competition vs. monopoly; profit rate dispersion in U.S. manufacturing industries. New York NY, New School for Social Reserach. Wells, J (2005) Competition as gravitation: An evolutionary perspective on a physical metaphor’.Unpublished manuscript; School of Management, The Open University Foley, D(2006), ‘Notes on Ideology and Methodology’ ,<http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd/ideo.html> accessed July 2005 Glick, M. (1985). Competition vs. monopoly; profit rate dispersion in U.S. manufacturing industries. New York NY, New School for Social Reserach. Shaikh, A (1998) ‘The Transformation from Marx to Sraffa’ in Bellofiore (ed) Marxian Economics: a Reappraisal. Basingstoke: MacMillan Shaikh, A. (1984). ‘The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value’, in Mandel, E. and Alan Freeman (eds) Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa: The Langston Memorial Volume, London: Verso. Pp43-84 Christodoulopoulos, G. (1996). International competition and industrial rates of return: an empirical approach 1970-1990. IWGVT, Boston. Farjoun, E. and M. Machover (1983). Laws of chaos, Verso. Gillman, J. M. (1956). The falling rate of profit: Marx's law and its significance to twentieth-century capitalism. London, Dennis Dobson. Glick, M. and H. Erbar (1988). “Profit rate equalization in the U.S. and Europe: an econometric investigation.” European Journal of Political Economy 4(1): 179-201. Glick, M. and H. Erbar (1990). “Long-run equilibrium in the empirical study of monopoly and competition.” Economic Enquiry 28(1): 151-62. Mage, S. H. (1963). The "law of the falling tendency of the rate of profit": its place in the Marxian theoretical system and relevance to the U.S. economy. New York NY, Columbia: 280. Maldonado-Filho, E. (1998). Competition and equalization of inter-industry profit rates: the evidence for the Brazilian economy, 1973-85. International Working Group on Value Theory mini-conference at the Eastern Economic Association, New York, N.Y. Raphael, D. D. and A. S. Skinner (1980). General introduction. The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith. W. P. D. Wightman, J. C. Bryce and I. S. Ross. Oxford, Oxford University Press. III: essays on philosophical subjects: 1-21. Smith, A. S. (1980a). The history of astronomy. The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith. W. P. D. Wightman, J. C. Bryce and I. S. Ross. Oxford, Oxford University Press. III: essays on philosophical subjects: 33-105. Smith, A. S. (1980a). The history of the ancient physics. The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith. W. P. D. Wightman, J. C. Bryce and I. S. Ross. Oxford, Oxford University Press. III: essays on philosophical subjects: 116-117. Tsaliki, P. (1998). Theories of competition and concept of regulating capital: evidence from Greek manufacturing. IWGVT, New York, N.Y. Wightman, W. P. D. and J. C. Bryce (1980). Introduction. The Glasgow edition of the works and correspondence of Adam Smith. W. P. D. Wightman, J. C. Bryce and I. S. Ross. Oxford, Oxford University Press. III: essays on philosophical subjects: 1-30. Marx, K. Wage Labour and Capital. <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch03.htm > accessed 4 June 2006 Schumpeter, J (xxxx) History of Economic Thought Howard, J. and King (xxxx) History of Marxian Economics. Jefferies (xxxx) Cremaschi, S. (2002) ‘Metaphors in the Wealth of Nations’, in Boehm, S., C. Gehrke, H. D. Kurz and R. Sturn (2002) Is There Progress in Economics: Knowledge, Truth and the History of Economic Thought. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp 89-113. Smith, A. (1983) Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, in J.C. Bryce (ed) Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, Vol IV, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman (1999) ‘The Limits of Ricardian Value: Law, Contingency and Motion in Economics’, paper submitted to 1999 conference of the Eastern Economic Association. <www.iwgvt.org/iwg_sessions.php?year=1999> Schumpeter’s (xxxx) History of Economic Thought Howard and King (xxxx) History of Marxian Economics. Sraffa (1965) Freeman and Carchedi (1995) Ricardo, reference to Sraffa edition needed Mongiovi, G (2002) ‘Vulgar Economy in Marxian Garb: A Critique of Temporal Single System Marxism.’ Paper submitted to 2002 conference of the Eastern Economic Association <www.iwgvt.org/iwg_sessions.php?year=2002 > Brody(xxxx) Freeman (1992) Capital Simulation Model presented to Conference of Socialist Economists 1992 Semmler, W. (1984) Competition, Monopoly and Differential Profit Rates: on the Relevance of the Classical and Marxian Theories of Production Prices for Modern Industrial and Corporate Pricing. New York: Colombia University Press. Sraffa, Piero (1960), Production of Commodities By Means Of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Pasinetti, L. (1977), Lectures in the Theory of Production. New York: Columbia. Steedman, Ian (1977), Marx after Sraffa. London: New Left Books. ________ (ed.), (1981), The Value Controversy. London: Verso. Albarracin, J (1984), ‘Constant returns and uniform profit rates: two false assumptions’, in Mandel and Freeman (1984). Mandel, E. and Freeman, A. (1984), Ricardo, Marx and Sraffa, the Langston Memorial Volume. London: Verso. Freeman (2007) Mosini book