Contenu du sommaire : La demande effective dans la pensée classique : reproduction et crises économiques

R. Torrens asserts that the most important contribution of his main work is the theory of effectual demand and the explanation of general glut. His theory contrasts with the theses of both T.R. Ma/thus on the one hand and J. Mill and J.B. Say (and consequently D. Ricardo) on the other. In this paper, starting from Torrens' definition of effectual demand, a model of reproduction is built up in which the conditions for the general glut can be established. On the ground of the results which are obtained : (i) a comparison is made between Torrens' and Sraffa's theories of prices and homothetic commodity, (ii) the problem of the incompatibility between the classical law of competition and the law of reproduction is raised.

In his article, La théorie de la demande effective chez R. Torrens (cf. above), C. Benetti argues that the originality of Torrens' theory rests upon the concepts of effective demand and general overproduction. However, Torrens' demonstration of general overproduction is considered obscure by Benetti. This note points out that the crucial issue is the different rule of exchanges chosen by Torrens and Benetti, respectively. By making the appropriate assumptions on the rule of exchanges, it is possible to build up a case which is different, both, from Torrens' and Benetti 's. In this case, general overproduction does not arise either in a barter or in a monetary model. Thus, the problem of the right interpretation of Torrens' rule of exchanges remains unsettled. Further research should address the question of the links between money and general overproduction in Torrens' model.

C. Benetti maintains in his paper that the theory of general overproduction and the theory of capitalist competition are not compatible in Torrens'thought. The present paper discusses this thesis : it rests on a particular set of assumptions, namely constant return to scale, no inventory policy and no transfers of capital between industries. A generalization of the model is proposed under the hypothesis of no constant returns to scale. The main result, in the well-behaved case, is : for a predetermined uniform rate of profit, there exists one price system (up to a scalar) associated to a unique set of quantities which ensures the equality between supply and effective demand for all commodities. Conversely, for a predetermined price system, there exists a unique rate of profit associated to a unique système of quantities which ensures equality between supply and effective demand.

Malthus argues that an increase in the rate of saving of the capitalists may be the cause of a general glut, whenever «right proportions» would be respected. His critique of Say's law is thus distinct from Torrens'one. In this controversy Torrens seems to win. We show that Malthus' result may be achieved thanks to a specific mechanism of the real wage formation. Malthus bounds himself to mention it ; but he does not perceive the decisive role which this mechanism plays in his own theory. There lies, it seems, the weakness of his argument in his controversy with Torrens.

The article shows that Ricardo, by describing the decline of employment as a consequence of mechanization, introduces in Chapter XXXI of his Principles a quantity effect which is not related to the laws of adjustment of relative price and activity level structures. This effect does not stem from the adoption but rather from the rejection of the wage-fund theory which, according to Ricardo, is incompatible with the existence of exchanges between capitalist agents. Finally, if the existence of this effect is not disproved by the operation of the goods market, it nevertheless shows that for Ricardo the «overpopulation» cannot be considered as a competitive force, i.e. as an excess supply on the labour market.

This article means to formulate the classical ideas about transferring capitals from one employment to another according to the rates of profit. First, the conceptual consequences of this formulation are established : 1) there are three theoretical levels, specified by three different sets of assumptions, where this question may be considered ; 2) there are two distinct though connected mechanisms (technological, financial), corresponding to two types of crises. A financial crisis can be overcome either by a technological change or by a new financial behaviour of the capitalists. But the only solution to a technological crisis is a change in technology. Second, it is shown at the less binding level that, according to the initial conditions, the economy may go to a crisis, reach a stationary periodic state, or converge to a natural position.

In this article we show that — contrarily to one of Sraffa's results — it is possible to build, under certain conditions, several different homothetic systems of production on the basis of the same original system. This fact permits us to show that the relative price of two different standard commodities changes when there is a change in the income distribution, which proves that Sraffa's thesis about the «invariability» of the value of the standard commodity is mistaken. Besides, we analyse the arguments presented by Sraffa in order to prove this thesis and we show that his demonstration is not correct.

Some difficulties connected with the definition and properties of non-basic systems in Sraffa's work.

In Marx's theory, two different concepts of «value in use» can be found : value in use is either regarded as a natural property of goods, or as a social property. To go further into the problem, we have to deal with exchange. In fact, exchange, for Marx, supposes that each good has no value in use for his first owner but only for the final owner. (With Marx, we do not consider barter but only monetary exchange ; so it can be proved that exchange actually is a social process.) So we conclude that exchanger in Marx's theory is not a consumer, as it is in marginalist theories, but a producer. We have now to deal with both exchange and capital. Marx's solution to the problem is logically incoherent, so we have to produce an other one. In this one, three classes have to be considered : financial capitalists, producers and workers (Marx considers industrial capitalists and workers). Capitalist profit is regarded as money interest.

The author analyses the central theme of this collective work, that is the mode of «socialisation of labour» which is proper to capitalism. He criticises the approach which interprets «validation» as a transformation of private labour into social labour through exchange and which excludes it from theory by opposing a notion of «abstract labour» (understood as a form specific to commodity relations) to a notion of «embodied labour». He sees in the thesis according to which the notion of «real abstraction» applies only to capitalism, a tendency to building marxism into a teleological philosophy of history. He relies on the analyses he develops in his book «What to do with Capital ?» (published by Klincksieck, Paris 1985).