Prospettive e limiti dell'Economia quantitativa

L'economia politica è, tra le scienze umane, quella che maggiormente sperimenta l'attrazione verso i metodi quantitativi e in particolare verso la matematica e la statistica. Recentemente questa attrazione si è fatta ancor più forte che in passato, al punto che non è raro trovare, tra gli economisti, dei teorici che amerebbero vedere l'economia considerata come un ramo della matematica applicata. Ma sarebbe davvero utile convogliare l'economia tra le scienze naturali o addirittura spingerla al ruolo di un ramo della matematica applicata? Una attenta riflessione porta ben presto alla constatazione che il rapporto tra economia e matematica è molto più complesso di quanto possa sembrare a prima vista. L'autore sottolinea che ci sono almeno quattro caratteristiche che differenziano l'economia politica dalle scienze naturali: l'oggetto di studio; la finalità della ricerca economica, tesa ad influenzare l'oggetto di studio; la sua caratteristica di disciplina per certi aspetti positiva e per altri aspetti normativa; il coinvolgimento dei giudizi di valore. Per illustrare queste differenze e inquadrare la dimensione autonoma dell'economia politica, l'autore ricorre ad una rassegna critica delle opinioni di alcuni economisti di rilievo, che hanno dedicato contributi all'argomento qui in discussione. Specifici riferimenti vengono fatti a Marshall, Keynes, Hicks, Morishima e - tra gli economisti maggiormente presenti nelle nostre discussioni - a Sraffa e Sen, ai quali ultimi l'autore si sente più vicino.Prices, Values, Equilibrium, Mathematics and economics, Sraffa, Debreu, Limits, of mathematical methods

Doctrina Social de la Iglesia y Teoría Económica: dos enfoques divergentes para un mundo en transformación

This article’s central subject is the importance of the intervention of the Church in social-economic issues. The author starts from two questions: the reason why the Social Doctrine of the Church was established only by the end of the XIX century and not before, and the reasons that led to the breakdown between the Social Doctrine of the Church and the prevailing economic theory. To give an answer to these points, Pasinetti dates back to the origin of Christianity, and makes a historical analysis of the development of economic theory until the proclamation of the Rerum Novarum encyclical in 1891. The author explains that this doctrinal corpus came up from three historical events: the Industrial Revolution, the impact of Karl Marx’s work, and the failure in formulating an economic theory able to solve the problems of a new world. The Social Doctrine of the Church, therefore, is meant to overcome these difficulties because it possesses the tools required to achieve this task.El artículo tiene por tema central la importancia de la intervención de la Iglesia en asuntos socio-económicos. El autor parte de dos interrogantes: el motivo por el cual se instauró la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia a finales del siglo XIX y no anteriormente, y las razones que condujeron al quiebre entre la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia y la teoría económica dominante. Para dar respuesta a estas cuestiones, Pasinetti se remonta a los inicios del Cristianismo, y realiza un análisis histórico del desarrollo de la teoría económica hasta la proclamación de la encíclica Rerum Novarum en 1891. El autor explica que ese corpus doctrinal surgió como resultado de tres eventos históricos: la Revolución Industrial, el impacto de la obra de Karl Marx, y la falla en formular una teoría económica capaz de resolver los problemas de un mundo nuevo. La Doctrina Social de la Iglesia, entonces, está llamada a superar estas dificultades ya que posee las herramientas necesarias para lograrlo

Social surplus approach and heterodox economics

Given the emphasis on social provisioning in heterodox economics, two of its central theoretical organizing principles are the concepts of the total social product and the social surplus. This appears to link heterodox economics to the social surplus approach associated with the classical economists and currently with Sraffian economists. However, heterodox economics connects agency with the social surplus and the social product, which the Sraffians reject as they take the level and composition of the social product as given. Therefore the different theoretical approach regarding the social surplus taken in heterodox economics may generate a different but similar way of theorizing about a capitalist economy. To explore this difference is the aim of the paper. Thus the paper is divided into four parts and a conclusion. In the first section social provisioning and the social surplus is introduced. In the second section, the Sraffian social surplus approach is delineated while in the third section the heterodox social surplus approach is delineated. In the fourth section of the paper, some of the implications emerging from the differences between the two approaches are discussed. The paper is concluded in the final section

Economic theory and technical progress

Economists’ recent outburst of interest in technical progress follows upon a widespread feeling of inadequacy of current economic theory. The author traces back the origin of this inadequacy to the historical circumstances that led an influential group of English economists in 1815 to put forward the “Law of diminishing returns” to land cultivation, jointly with the theory of rent. He shows how technical progress, though not denied in principle, was eliminated by assumption for analytical reasons. That choice - he argues – arose from historical circumstances specific to a particular country in a particular time. Yet it has influenced the development of economic theory ever since. Later on, neoclassical economists have further exacerbated the effects of that initial choice. The author argues in favour of going back to the origin and reversing the Classical choice