In a 1967 festschrift for Maurice Dobb, Richard Goodwin published an influential paper, "A Growth Cycle" on the "class struggle" model of cycles in economic growth. I only became aware of this famous paper because it had occurred to me that the dynamics of relative surplus population, necessary labour time, and socially necessary labour time might resemble a Lotka-Volterra predator-prey model.
 |
| Painting by Richard M. Goodwin |
I suspect that profits (or surplus value?) could be brought into a labour capacity/socially necessary labour time model through something like a predator/prey/parasite analysis, with surplus value being "parasitic" rather than "predatory." The implication of my alternative model is unusual -- "class struggle" appears in it as endogenous to labour -- the counterpart to competition between firms.
I don't do mathematical modeling so if there is anyone who does and finds these comments of interest, I would love to see what you come up with.
18 comments:
Perhaps https://www.jstor.org/stable/4538276 gets at part of what you are after.
Thanks, Alan, I look forward to reading that. On another venue, a colleague suggested I have a look at Steve Keen's work. His "Minsky model" is based on Goodwin's adaptation of the Lotka-Volterra. I am learning the ropes of the Minsky program to see if I can modify it to describe my interpretation of Marx's theory from the Grundrisse, which may be bolder than how he explained it in Capital.
I read the 1967 essay carefully and possibly you might add to this post to explain what a reader should be looking for. A further explanation would be really helpful.
anne,
At this point I am not entirely sure where this is going. I am "thinking out loud" in the hope that it clarifies things for me or that someone else chimes in with a clue. My friend, Jean Boucher shared a video of a talk by Steve Keen that might add some clues... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn68Llfayl0
Fine; I read quickly through the article mentioned by A Isaac, and will watch the video from Keen. Here is what I will try to get hold of:
"Goodwin's model dealt ultimately with the relationship between wages and profits, which seems like a logical place to start. But I think it is wrong. In my view -- and interpretation of Marx -- a more fundamental disequilibrium exists between labour capacity and employed labour power."
What I would like to do with this line of thinking-speculation is to relate it to economic growth or the sustaining of economic growth.
When intellectual or tangible history is looked to by the Chinese leadership, the point is invariably application to development. That is presently the case, which seems little understood or appreciated by Western analysts. Of course, I realize that it is risky for a Western analyst to appreciate the course of development in China, but that will change in time since China will continue to grow strongly.
Yes, anne, that was the original purpose of Goodwin's model. He was a colleague of Roy Harrod and read Harrod's theory in draft. So Goodwin was right in the thick of the development of post-WW2 growth theory.
Keen's adaptation of the model is intended to explore financial instability, in the sense of Hyman Minsky's work on that. Lately, he has been moving in the direction of modeling energy inputs into the economy, which is relevant to climate change.
My own interest is in bringing the model to bear on some of the fundamentals of Marx's theory, which I believe Goodwin left out -- either because it was too complicated to do with "equations" or because the presentation of those fundamentals was different in Capital from what it had been in the Grundrisse.
In my view, in Capital Marx was concerned to put "meat" and "skin" on the "bones" of the theory he developed in Grundrisse. The bones are still there but they are hard to detect without the Grundrisse as an X-ray machine. Apologies for the corny analogy!
Keen's adaptation of the model is intended to explore financial instability, in the sense of Hyman Minsky's work on that. Lately, he has been moving in the direction of modeling energy inputs into the economy, which is relevant to climate change....
[ Precisely what the Chinese are and will be focusing on; for instance:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-18/Chinese-researchers-develop-light-splitting-solar-greenhouse-roof-165rG6foLV6/index.html
December 18, 2021
Chinese researchers develop light-splitting solar greenhouse roof ]
An irony of Goodwin's model is that in terms of their roles in the mathematics coming from the Lotka-Volterra predator-prey cycles is that in Goodwin's model the "predator" is actually the workers who in effect "prey" on the capitalists' profits.
I was wondering about that.
Predator-prey relations are sustainable as long as there are limits to predation. Whether the predator is labor or employer would seem to make no difference in building a model.
"Whether the predator is labor or employer would seem to make no difference..."
Yes, when using metaphors it is important not to take them literally and try to find one-to-one correspondences.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be metaphors.
Here is a sense of what development has meant in China:
http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/21/c_1310386188.htm
December 21, 2021
Chinese women's average life expectancy exceeds 80 years in 2020
http://www.news.cn/english/2021-12/21/c_1310386179.htm
December 21, 2021
China's common prosperity boon to world
BEIJING -- The phrase common prosperity has gained prominence this year, as China is determined to bring better lives to more people.
After winning the anti-poverty fight and completing the first centenary goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, China now has favorable conditions for promoting common prosperity....
The point of using a predator-prey model is to make clear that an equilibrium range must be reached where development is benign and routinely helpful for workers.
The predator-prey model only works for a steady state balance between predator and prey, but allow for no necessary development. Development is essential to account for, and that is what China is accomplishing for 1.4 billion no matter the Western efforts to stop Chinese development.
An important instance of concern that was expressed, was about the well-being of migrant workers and families in China. That well-being has been and is being addressed by a series of state intervention on behalf of migrants. The migrant and family gains would not have come from worker-employer relations alone. What was necessary was specific state intervention bolstering workers and families. The resulting gains are dramatic.
Post a Comment