论马克思用工资曲线描述技术进步及其历史演变

IF 1 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS Review of Radical Political Economics Pub Date : 2023-09-21 DOI:10.1177/04866134231188585
Michael Gaul
{"title":"论马克思用工资曲线描述技术进步及其历史演变","authors":"Michael Gaul","doi":"10.1177/04866134231188585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Marx’s account of technical progress has been criticized by philosophers as being a metanarrative, by ecological economists as being unduly strong, by economists as being unduly weak, and by post-Sraffian authors as being ill-founded. This article discusses Marx’s account of technical progress in light of these criticisms on a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical level, relying on the apparatus of wage curves. It argues that some of the critiques cannot be sustained, since the criticized positions cannot be attributed to Marx. The remaining critiques, in turn, amount to alternative predictions on the evolution of wage curves which are, however, and in contrast to those of Marx, not in line with empirical evidence, as the estimation of wage curves for thirteen countries from 2000 to 2013 shows. JEL Classification: B14, B24, O33","PeriodicalId":46719,"journal":{"name":"Review of Radical Political Economics","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Discussion of Marx’s Account of Technical Progress by Means of Wage Curves and Their Historical Evolution\",\"authors\":\"Michael Gaul\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/04866134231188585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Marx’s account of technical progress has been criticized by philosophers as being a metanarrative, by ecological economists as being unduly strong, by economists as being unduly weak, and by post-Sraffian authors as being ill-founded. This article discusses Marx’s account of technical progress in light of these criticisms on a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical level, relying on the apparatus of wage curves. It argues that some of the critiques cannot be sustained, since the criticized positions cannot be attributed to Marx. The remaining critiques, in turn, amount to alternative predictions on the evolution of wage curves which are, however, and in contrast to those of Marx, not in line with empirical evidence, as the estimation of wage curves for thirteen countries from 2000 to 2013 shows. JEL Classification: B14, B24, O33\",\"PeriodicalId\":46719,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Radical Political Economics\",\"volume\":\"52 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Radical Political Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/04866134231188585\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Radical Political Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/04866134231188585","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

马克思对技术进步的描述被哲学家批评为一种元叙事,被生态经济学家批评为过于强势,被经济学家批评为过于软弱,被后伊拉克作家批评为缺乏根据。本文根据这些批评,在概念、理论和经验层面上,依靠工资曲线的工具,讨论马克思对技术进步的描述。它认为,有些批评是站不住脚的,因为被批评的立场不能归因于马克思。剩下的批评,反过来,相当于对工资曲线演变的替代预测,然而,与马克思的预测相反,不符合经验证据,正如对2000年至2013年13个国家工资曲线的估计所示。JEL分类:B14, B24, O33
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Discussion of Marx’s Account of Technical Progress by Means of Wage Curves and Their Historical Evolution
Marx’s account of technical progress has been criticized by philosophers as being a metanarrative, by ecological economists as being unduly strong, by economists as being unduly weak, and by post-Sraffian authors as being ill-founded. This article discusses Marx’s account of technical progress in light of these criticisms on a conceptual, theoretical, and empirical level, relying on the apparatus of wage curves. It argues that some of the critiques cannot be sustained, since the criticized positions cannot be attributed to Marx. The remaining critiques, in turn, amount to alternative predictions on the evolution of wage curves which are, however, and in contrast to those of Marx, not in line with empirical evidence, as the estimation of wage curves for thirteen countries from 2000 to 2013 shows. JEL Classification: B14, B24, O33
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Review of Radical Political Economics (RRPE) promotes critical inquiry into all areas of economic, social, and political reality. As the journal of the Union for Radical Political Economics, RRPE publishes innovative research in political economy broadly defined including, but not confined to, Marxian economies, post-Keynesian economics, Sraffian economics, feminist economics, and radical institutional economics. We are actively seeking submissions concerned with policy, history of thought, and economics and the environment. RRPE reflects an interdisciplinary approach to the study, development, and application of radical political economic analysis to social problems.
期刊最新文献
Sovereign Credit Rating: Impact on Social Investment and Role in Financial Subordination From a Spoke to a Hub: The Case of South Korea Debate as a Pedagogical Tool for Pluralist Economics Education Abstracts Chinese September 2024 Abstracts Spanish September 2024
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1