This website uses cookies.

By clicking the "Accept" button or continuing to browse our site, you agree to first-party and session-only cookies being stored on your device to enhance site navigation and analyze site performance and traffic. For more information on our use of cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  1. Home
  2. ASSA Annual Meeting
  3. 2026
  4. Program
  5. The Place of Sraffa in the History of Economic Thought
« Back to Results

The Place of Sraffa in the History of Economic Thought

Paper Session

Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026 2:30 PM - 4:30 PM (EST)

Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Room 404
Hosted By: History of Economics Society
  • Chair: Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, Sapienza, Università di Roma

How Is It Possible That Marshall Is Still Alive After Sraffa’s 1925/1926 Devastating Critique?

Andrea Salanti
,
University of Bergamo

Abstract

Even if in 1930 Sraffa ended by asserting that “perhaps I ought to have explained that, in the circumstances, I think it is Marshall's theory that should be discarded”, one of the aims of his renowned 1925/1926 two papers appears to have been (or at least many readers interpreted them in this way) to define the strict conditions for Marshallian partial equilibrium to be theoretically legitimate, i.e. suited to reach rigorously exact conclusions. In other words, he reconstructed in a logically consistent way the Marshallian partial equilibrium model of pure competition markets with reference to the supply curve, in order to single out the logically admissible accounts of empirical situations to which those models could be applied and those situations to which they could not. Note, by the way, that a similar exercise might be done with reference to the demand side too, resulting in the conclusion that partial equilibrium legitimacy requires a unitary income (and/or price) elasticity of demand.
In both cases it has to be remarked that in any case every (logically) consistent theory is ‘true’ in its context, usually a variety ‘possible worlds’, independently of actual circumstances. However, its applicability to the ‘real world’ otherwise depends on the relevance of its assumptions.
The main aim of this paper is therefore to show that Sraffa’s attempt, as well as other ones in the same vein for that matter, paves the way for conjecturing the existence of a trade-off between rigor and relevance in economic theorizing, where rigor is a matter of being consistent with theoretical principles, while relevance has to do with the possibility of transferring conclusions or predictions obtained within the model to what actually happens in the external world.

Sraffa and the Capital Controversy: Evidence from the Sraffa Archive (1960-1966)

Andres Lazzarini
,
Goldsmiths University of London

Abstract

The 1966 Quarterly Journal of Economics Symposium on Paradoxes in Capital Theory is widely recognised as a turning point in the history of economics, delivering a significant challenge to orthodox capital theory. Two key contributions to this Symposium came from two prominent figures on the critical side of the Cambridge capital controversies – Luigi Pasinetti and Pierangelo Garegnani.
Pasinetti and Garegnani, both closely associated with Piero Sraffa, likely discussed their respective contributions with their mentor at Cambridge. This hypothesis is supported by evidence now accessible in the Sraffa Papers, which include not only direct correspondence with Sraffa but also letters exchanged between Pasinetti and Garegnani as they developed their papers and which often took place in parallel with their discussions with Sraffa. Further, as the Symposium’s publication neared (November 1966), Samuelson himself engaged with both Pasinetti and Garegnani, anticipating the flaws in Levhari’s earlier work. These exchanges, in turn, were shared back to Sraffa independently by his two disciples.
This paper has two main aims: first, to unearth and analyse key correspondence among Sraffa, Pasinetti, Garegnani, and Samuelson between 1965 and 1966 with the aim to shed light on Sraffa’s intellectual influence on the Pasinetti and Garegnani contributions. Second, it traces theoretical threads in these letters back to Sraffa’s earlier discussions between 1960 and 1963, particularly on (the absence of) the assumption of constant returns in Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960), and the development of the standard system. In this paper we examine exchanges Sraffa had with C.Bliss, Garegnani, J. Meade and M. Dobb available in D3/12/111 of the Sraffa archive.

Sraffa and Wittgenstein on Language and Method

Gary Mongiovi
,
St. John's University

Abstract

Most discussions of Sraffa and Wittgenstein focus on the economist’s role as a catalyst for the transition in Wittgenstein’s thought from the Tractatus to the Philosophical Investigations. In this paper I want to shift the focus of discussion a little bit.
There has been a tendency to overemphasize Wittgenstein’s change of views between 1929 and 1933, while neglecting the important fact that he did not abandon all of the ideas of the Tractatus. Moreover, the various efforts to derive conjectures about Sraffa’s philosophical views by extrapolation from the arguments of the later Wittgenstein, while understandable, have not always been well grounded.
My aim is not to argue against what is well established—that Sraffa was instrumental in helping Wittgenstein to recognize “grave mistakes” at the heart of the Tractatus; and that Sraffa’s criticisms influenced Wittgenstein in a profound way. But it might also be useful to consider what aspects of their personalities and scientific outlooks brought them together, and what these points of connection can teach us about the connections between their scientific viewpoints — and about our own.
Much of what we regard as obviously true, and therefore routinely take for granted, is not taken for granted because we have definitively established its truth. But we must presume the truth of these preconceptions in order to communicate with other members of our community, including our scientific community.
The network of beliefs and givens that constitute our worldview Wittgenstein calls “the scaffolding of our thoughts,” a term that Sraffa also uses, in his manuscripts, to denote that concepts that define the structure of the classical theory of value and distribution

The 1960 Review of Production of Commodities by John Eaton and the Discussion on Sraffa after Marx

Riccardo Bellofiore
,
University of Bergamo
Scott Carter
,
University of Tulsa

Abstract

When in April of 1960 Piero Sraffa, after over 3 decades, finally published the English edition of his slim and terse Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, this was followed just a few weeks later with the Italian edition. This work underwent scores of reviews; only two were published in its year of publication, both appearing in Italian journals.
One was a review by Rodolfo Banfi that appeared in the journal of the Italian Communist Party Rinascita, another a review by Stephen Bodington (nom de plume of John Eaton) that appeared in the Italian Marxist cultural journal Società. In the same year Napoleoni wrote another substantial review following a written exchange with Mattioli (with Sraffa involved) published in Giornale degli Economisti in 1961 (now available in English), as well as discussing with Aurelio Macchioro with whom Sraffa insisted that everybody was left free to interpret PCMC as s/he wanted …
The paper’s main focus is on the finally discovered English original drafts of Bodington’s review and also introduce new archival evidence found in 2020 by one of us at the Labour History Archive & Centre (LHAC) of the People’s History Museum (PHC) in Manchester, England. The material in Manchester includes two English typescript versions, correction sheets, and several letters on the matter from both Maurice Dobb and Ronald Meek, among other important documents.
This recently discovered archival evidence in conjunction with evidence already extant at the Sraffa Archive allows us to chronicle this episode in the intellectual biography of Piero Sraffa and the Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory he offered the world in 1960.The now completed correspondence between Bodington, Dobb, Meek and Sraffa permits a better reconstruction of the episode,

Discussant(s)
John Davis
,
Marquette University
Maria Cristina Marcuzzo
,
Sapienza, Università di Roma
JEL Classifications
  • B3 - History of Economic Thought: Individuals
  • B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925