{"title":"“开放”:斯拉法经济思想的方法论原则","authors":"John B. Davis","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3476662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960) was path-breaking as a contribution to political economy and penetrating as a critique of the orthodox economics of the twentieth century. As Ajit Sinha recently put it, the book produced a ‘revolution in economic theory’ (Sinha, A Revolution in Economic Theory: The Economics of Piero Sraffa, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016; cf. Martins, “The Sraffian Methodenstreit and the Revolution in Economic Theory,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 43 (2): 507–525, 2019), the impact and significance of which continues to be investigated. At the same time, despite the depth and far-reaching implications of Sraffa’s critique of orthodox economics it was ignored by the great majority of economists, and this not only complicates our understanding of its impact on economic theory, but also creates a paradox regarding our interpretation of ‘the’ history of economics. For Sraffa, ‘the’ history of economics dates back at least to Adam Smith and David Ricardo as founders of a subject specifically understood as political economy. Yet economics today is no longer identified as political economy by most people in the field, but is conventionally said to be a science independent of history, politics, and social values, and thus makes little reference to how the social organization of the economy was a distinctive characteristic of the thinking of Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and others in the history of political economy.","PeriodicalId":226815,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","volume":"96 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Openness’ as a Methodological Principle of Sraffa’s Economic Thinking\",\"authors\":\"John B. Davis\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3476662\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960) was path-breaking as a contribution to political economy and penetrating as a critique of the orthodox economics of the twentieth century. As Ajit Sinha recently put it, the book produced a ‘revolution in economic theory’ (Sinha, A Revolution in Economic Theory: The Economics of Piero Sraffa, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016; cf. Martins, “The Sraffian Methodenstreit and the Revolution in Economic Theory,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 43 (2): 507–525, 2019), the impact and significance of which continues to be investigated. At the same time, despite the depth and far-reaching implications of Sraffa’s critique of orthodox economics it was ignored by the great majority of economists, and this not only complicates our understanding of its impact on economic theory, but also creates a paradox regarding our interpretation of ‘the’ history of economics. For Sraffa, ‘the’ history of economics dates back at least to Adam Smith and David Ricardo as founders of a subject specifically understood as political economy. Yet economics today is no longer identified as political economy by most people in the field, but is conventionally said to be a science independent of history, politics, and social values, and thus makes little reference to how the social organization of the economy was a distinctive characteristic of the thinking of Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and others in the history of political economy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":226815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal\",\"volume\":\"96 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3476662\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy & Methodology of Economics eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3476662","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
皮耶罗·斯拉法的《以商品为手段的商品生产》(1960)是对政治经济学的开创性贡献,也是对20世纪正统经济学的深刻批判。正如阿吉特·辛哈(Ajit Sinha)最近所说,这本书引发了一场“经济理论革命”(辛哈,《经济理论革命:皮耶罗·斯拉法经济学》,伦敦:帕尔格雷夫·麦克米伦出版社,2016;参见Martins,“The raffian Methodenstreit and The Revolution in Economic Theory”,《剑桥经济学杂志》(Cambridge Journal of Economics) 43(2): 507-525, 2019),其影响和意义仍在研究中。与此同时,尽管斯拉法对正统经济学的批判具有深刻而深远的影响,但它却被绝大多数经济学家所忽视,这不仅使我们对其对经济理论的影响的理解变得复杂,而且在我们对经济学“历史”的解释上造成了一个悖论。对斯拉法来说,经济学的“历史”至少可以追溯到亚当·斯密和大卫·李嘉图,他们是专门被理解为政治经济学的学科的创始人。然而,今天的经济学不再被该领域的大多数人认定为政治经济学,而是传统上被认为是一门独立于历史、政治和社会价值的科学,因此很少提及经济的社会组织如何成为斯密、李嘉图、马克思和政治经济学史上其他人思想的一个显著特征。
‘Openness’ as a Methodological Principle of Sraffa’s Economic Thinking
Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960) was path-breaking as a contribution to political economy and penetrating as a critique of the orthodox economics of the twentieth century. As Ajit Sinha recently put it, the book produced a ‘revolution in economic theory’ (Sinha, A Revolution in Economic Theory: The Economics of Piero Sraffa, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016; cf. Martins, “The Sraffian Methodenstreit and the Revolution in Economic Theory,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 43 (2): 507–525, 2019), the impact and significance of which continues to be investigated. At the same time, despite the depth and far-reaching implications of Sraffa’s critique of orthodox economics it was ignored by the great majority of economists, and this not only complicates our understanding of its impact on economic theory, but also creates a paradox regarding our interpretation of ‘the’ history of economics. For Sraffa, ‘the’ history of economics dates back at least to Adam Smith and David Ricardo as founders of a subject specifically understood as political economy. Yet economics today is no longer identified as political economy by most people in the field, but is conventionally said to be a science independent of history, politics, and social values, and thus makes little reference to how the social organization of the economy was a distinctive characteristic of the thinking of Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and others in the history of political economy.