[OPE-L:8505] Re: Okishio Theorem 'repudiated'?

From: rakeshb@stanford.edu
Date: Tue Feb 25 2003 - 03:03:01 EST

Quoting gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@msn.com in 8499>:

> Okishio did not 'repudiate'  what has become known as the
> Okishio Theorem (in his _CJE_ 2001 article): rather, he simply
> acknowledged that it was a comparative statics result.  

Oh I don't agree. He did not merely acknowledge that it was a 
comparative statics result. He questioned what heuristic relevance  
a result on such basis could have for the study of actual capitalist 
dynamics.  This may not constitute repudiation--many of us must 
remember previous hair-splitting OPE-L discussion about what 
this entails-- but there is more critical bite in regards to what has 
become known as the Okishio Theorem (or at least the claims 
made on the basis thereof) than you are letting on. 

Here's the abstract after all:

Competition and production prices 
Nobuo Okishio 

2-1-2-1108 Ibukidae Higashi machi, Nishi, Kobe 651-2242, Japan 


My theorem, the so-called Okishio theorem, is a comparative 
statics result. Therefore, it has no realistic meaning if capitalists' 
competition does not establish a new equilibrium following the 
introduction of a new production method. Marx firmly believed that 
a new equilibrium was established. In this paper, we investigate 
the capitalist process without technical change. If we choose the 
proper parameters and initial conditions, all profit rates converge 
to zero, Schumpeter's result. 

Of course the idea that new production methods are introduced 
before a new equilibrium is established seems quite reasonable. 

It would be important for this list to consider Okishio's article in the 
context of previous criticism of comparative static methodology, 
e.g. Ben Fine's, Geert Reuten's, Guglielmo Carchedi's and Alan 
Freeman's respective criticisms. 

Frankly, I am surprised this has not been attempted on this list, 
and my post was meant to be provocative. 

I don't have my copy of the article with me right now, and I can't 
download the pdf on this computer; my copy is tucked in my copy 
OPE-L's  Stephen Cullenberg's book on the falling profit rate 
which while raising several important and profound questions 
about methodological holism does not deal much with this 
question of comparative statics. 

It would be great of course if Steve C himself commented on this 

> And it has  been claimed by Fujimoto and Ranade that the 
> Okishio Theorem also holds in a non-linear environment:

This article does not seem to comment on the CJE piece. 
> Solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 26 2003 - 00:00:01 EST