t
( 30th May 1986 )
Comment on Professor Ciccone's Paper.
By J.Steindl
I may perhaps at the outset state my position: I think
that
it is perfectly true/,as prof.Ciccone argues, utilisation
is flexible not only in the short but also in the long run.
This does not, however, necessarily exclude that the
alternative method of adjusting saving to a change in
accumulation, namely a shift to or from profits ( what he
calls a change in normal profits ) may not also play a role.
Ultimately this seems to me to be a question of facts, but
Professor Ciccone tends to make it an issue of high doctrine.
Thus he is very concerned to deny that accumulation may have
an influence on the real wage ( p.17-18 ); his argument is
that owing to flexible utilisation an increase in accumulation
could always be accommodated by an increased output from
the given capital stock which would obviate a decline in
real wages. But in the context of a growing economy the
real wage ( also the subsistence wage in a conventional
historical interpretation ) will presumably be expected
to rise,and the question will be how much or how little
it will be permitted to rise by the pace of accumulation.
In other words, even with all the flexibility in the world
the pace of accumulation will not be irrelevant for
the development of the real wage.
Strictly speaking, Joan Robinson's arguments were not
concerned with historical developments but with a " long
run competitive equilibrium", and quite logically Professor
Ciccone tries to refute her on this ground. He immediately
meets the difficulty that for a price equilibrium ( Sraffa's
system though not mentioned is always in the background )