The study of commodities has been central to economic theory. Mercantilists considered gold, a commodity to be wealth. Later economists argued that an increase in commodities, both agricultural and manufactured, implied an increase in wealth. The increase in the production of commodities is still the most widely used indicator of economic growth/progress. This indicator is none other than the real GDP. In 1985, Amartya Sen published a book titled Commodities and Capabilities. In this work, Sen challenges the dominant view in economics regarding the role of commodities, i.e. he maintained that an increase in commodities cannot be taken as the sole factor in assessing economic development. Sen emphasised the importance of examining capabilities, which subsequently led to the creating of the Human Development Index (HDI). This post discusses the rationale behind economists’ obsession with commodities. It also examines Sen’s critique of commodities and how his (Aristotelian) concept of capabilities differs from it. This post concludes by arguing for a strengthening of classical economics, which studies the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of commodities, for the considerations of ethics can be easily integrated into this approach.

Economics as a distinct form of inquiry begins with the works of Sir William Petty in the 17^th century. Petty was interested in assessing the comparative wealth of England and Ireland. Some of the indicators he chose were the number of houses and population. The idea behind this being that a surplus of food results in more population and therefore more houses. Having a large population was considered to be beneficial to the state. His successor, Richard Cantillon, an economist par excellence, pointed out that wealth of a state is reflected in the quantity and nature of commodities it produces – necessities, comforts and luxuries. This brief historical excursus is to point out the nature of economic inquiry, which is essentially an analysis of quantities and prices. Examples of quantities are employment, income, exports, investment, money supply, etc. Examples of prices are WPI, interest rates, foreign exchange rate, commodity prices, share prices, etc. That is, an analysis of commodities is an examination of quantity and price at the same time. Therefore, an analysis of commodities subsumes an examination of their production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Production includes the structure and relations of production; distribution pertains to the process and mechanism through which the incomes/surplus from production is divided among its participants; exchange refers to the mode and institution through which commodities are sold; finally, consumption illuminates the channels through which consumption of commodities aid production in the next period and how production in the current period aids current consumption. Thus, classical economists such as Petty, Cantillon, Quesnay, Smith and Ricardo were interested in the theory of production, distribution and exchange of commodities. Their interest was motivated by the need to find out ways of improving the general well-being of their respective societies.

According to Sen, the kind of analysis posited above looks at opulence as the sole indicator of economic development. A shift in economic analysis came about in the 1870s with the emergence of marginal analysis, independently developed by Jevons, Walras and Menger. Terms such as utility, choice, scarcity, margins, etc made inroads into economics. In fact, standard microeconomics texts are nothing but a combination of Walrasian and Marshallian economics. In any case, the maximization of utility began to be seen as the objective of individuals, for attaining economic progress. The internal justice of free markets was imbued to this form of economic analysis. Based on utilitarian principles, the maximization of utility by individuals was seen as a way to improve human well-being and welfare. This conception of development, according to Sen, emphasised the role of utility.

Both the above mentioned analyses, according to Sen, deal with “the relation between commodities and people” (p. 1). The former approach argues for more commodities which leads to more production, which raises the incomes of the people and hence their consumption. The latter analysis points out that “more is better” and hence availability of more commodities imply more utility. The idea of “more is better” is intricately connected with their idea of economics, as a science of choice. Economics, for marginal/neoclassical economists, refers to the allocation of scarce resources amongst alternative uses, as Lionel Robbins points out. For Sen, both these analyses are limited, since they do not address the heterogeneity in the capabilities of different people, which leads to “a confounding of the state of a person with the extent of his or her possessions” (p. 16). It is precisely this argument of Sen developed in his 1985 book which widened the scope of mainstream economics. I write mainstream economics because for classical economists, economics or political economy formed only one way of looking at growth/progress/development. For classical economists, as pointed out earlier, an analysis of production included the state or condition of the producer. The best example of this form of theorising can be found in Marx, the last of the early classical economists. However, with the advent of marginal analysis, the analyses of the structure of production took a backseat. The sphere of exchange came to the forefront and along with it the explanation of the formation of all kinds of prices and quantities through the apparatus of demand & supply.

It is interesting to note that the idea of capabilities has been intrinsic to classical economics. As mentioned earlier, an increase in the production of commodities translates into an increase in income generated. In contrast with neoclassical economics, the economic processes is visualised in a circular way as opposed to a one-way street. One needs to look into the structure of production to find out to whom (which class) this increase in income accrues (theory of distribution). However, the manner in which Sen develops his capabilities approach is rooted in mainstream/neoclassical economics – via the sub-domain of welfare economics (See Benicourt 2002 and Omkarnath 2007). Although, Sen deserves credit for bringing back humanitarian concerns into the discourse of neoclassical economics. Omkarnath further points out that the capabilities approach rooted in the Walrasian tradition is static in nature, for it mainly concentrates on the formation of capabilities. Whereas, classical economics has numerous insights on the relation between capabilities and commodities. This sort of analysis calls for a careful examination of the structure of production, distribution and exchange present in various economies in the classical political economy tradition, which has more scope for including social, cultural and political factors as well as ethical concerns.

References

Benicourt, E (2002), “Is Amartya Sen a Post-Autistic Economist?”, post-autistic economics review, issue no. 15, September 4, 2002, article 4. http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue15/Benicourt15.htm

Omkarnath, G (2007), “The Formation of Capabilities”, Indian Journal of Human Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 389-399.

Sen, Amartya (1985) [1999], Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford University Press: New Delhi.

The field of law and economics is a glamorous one with economists such as Ronald Coase, Gary Becker and Richard Posner. It was Coase who provided the inspiration to law and economics through his introduction of ‘transaction cost economics.’ And Becker was the one who extended the domain of economics to virtually any social phenomena. Issues such as law, crime, marriage, family, etc came to be studied by economists. Although, the tools used never varied. It was the same old microeconomic baggage of neoclassical economics. Suddenly, neoclassical economics started feeling successful all over again. Their theory of value and pricing started explaining various social and cultural processes in the economy. However, this post is not a commentary on law and economics that is practised. For an excellent commentary on its origins and methodology, see the article by William Davies ‘Economics and the ‘nonsense’ of law: the case of the Chicago antitrust revolution’ in Economy and Society published in 2010.

The content of this post certainly falls under the label of law and economics. However, this post discusses certain aspects of the Constitution of India in the the light of economic policies undertaken-that of liberalization. The quotations in this post are from Dr. Durga Das Basu’s Introduction to the Constitution of India, reprinted in December 2009.

Economic Justice

The banishment of poverty, not by expropriation of those who have, but by the multiplication of the national wealth and resources and an equitable distribution thereof amongst all who contribute towards its production, is the aim of the State envisaged by the Directive Principles. Economic democracy will be installed in our sub-continent to the extent that this goal is reached. In short, economic justice aims at establishing economic democracy and a ‘Welfare State’.

The idea of economic justice is to make equality of status meaningful and life worth living at its best removing inequality of opportunity and of status-social, economic and political.

That is, an increase in growth rate is seen as the way to banish poverty. This principle is certainly based on the idea that growth trickles down. As has been witnessed in India, all that liberalization has achieved is ‘jobless growth’. Hence, the need for policy documents to shout for ‘inclusive growth’.

Now, all those who contribute to wealth by being producers are supposed to be compensated. It is on this class, that the burden of development falls. For, they do not have the adequate social and economic voice to demand for ‘just distribution’.

Can India claim social justice just by making opportunities equal? Equal opportunities perform their function only in an already just and equitable society, and not in countries where inequality of income and wealth is so skewed. Thus, an active intervention is necessary at the level of production as well as distribution of GDP.

Nehru’s idea of Socialism is that “every individual in the State should have equal opportunity for progress.” However, this idea cannot hold any water until the institutions in the State are examined- judiciary, executive, military, private enterprise, unorganised sector, etc. For instance, some groups of people are exploited as producers, where they are paid less than minimum wages. Therefore, as a consumer, they get exploited as well. This then passes on to their access to health, schooling, sanitation, housing, and so on.

Individual Liberty

The Preamble, therefore, says that the State, in India, will assure the dignity of the Individual. “All citizens men and women equally, have the right to an dequate means of livelihood, just and humane conditions of work, and a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities.”

When economists and policy makers talk of ‘inclusive growth’, it is the dignity of the individual which is at stake. Often, India’s characteristics such as high reliance on agriculture, a large percentage of unorganised sector, immobility of labour and the like are labelled as detrimental to India’s growth and development. One cannot help but ask: Whose growth? Such perceptions by the academia are largely a result of the manner in which human beings figure in micro and macro economics. If you take a moment to think about it, you will realise that poor people-who are a heterogeneous group- is absent from our theoretical edifice. Why? Who are we analysing? And to discuss poverty, we have created a sub-discipline called ‘development economics’.

In any case, human dignity appears to be of lesser importance than the computation of growth rates using yearly and quarterly data. We are satisfied to decipher whether stock market exhibits volatility or not? Or whether market A is co-integrated with market Z. Does this satisfaction come from the fact that stock market data is easily available? What about the farmers, the child labourers, the migrant labourers who are forced to leave their place and family, of street vendors, and all the others who actually engage in production?

Until dignity of human life features implicitly or explicitly in economics, it will continue to be a lifeless endeavour. Sadly enough, we are taught economics is the study of choice? Whose choices? Those who have the ability to choose? It is time we discarded such economics and re-visited economists such as Adam Smith, Joan Robinson, Amit Bhaduri, and others whose works show a concern for humans.

Division of labour is generally associated with Adam Smith (1776). The concept of division of labour attains significance because it helps in formulating an endogenous growth model, along with the extent of the market. The idea is that specialization has a positive effect on the extent of the market, which in turn leads to more division of labour.

Apart, from this, in everyday life, we come across division of labour in various shapes and sizes. A very strong example of this is that of outsourcing. Earlier, physicians attended to a patient and they were quite knowledgeable in many aspects of medicine. Now, we have ENT specialists, paediatricians, cardiologists, nephrologists, neurologists, orthopaedicians, etc. This is visible in the IT industry as well. And specialization has not left academic untouched either. Within economics, one finds econometricians, economic historians, experimental economists, macroeconomists and so on.

In the Wealth of Nations, Smith [1776] talks of pin-making to illustrate division of labour:

“One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on, is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them.” [p. 15]

Today, while going through Sir William Petty’s ‘Another Essay in Political Arithmetick Concerning the Growth of the City of London‘ which was published in 1682, I found division of labour mentioned. Petty illustrates it using the example of watch-making:

“In the making of a Watch, If one Man shall make the Wheels, another the Spring, another shall Engrave the Dial-plate, and another shall make the Cases, then the Watch will be better and cheaper, than if the whole Work be put upon any one Man.” [p. 473]

Then, while going through the Campbell and Skinner edited Volume of Wealth of Nations, I noticed that in the first foot note, they refer to Petty as probably being the first modern author to talk about division of labour.

Interesting to know that William Petty, hailed by Marx has the first political economist, had developed notions of division of labour!

Economics, rather Political Economy attempted at providing a coherent theory of value. Economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, etc are associated with a ‘theory of value’. Currently, in economics, ‘value’ is not discussed in courses of relevance. However, students are exposed to value theories such as labour commanded, labour embodied and so on.

This post is the second in the series of posts ‘On Prices’. This posts attempts at clarifying concepts such as values, prices and costs of production. Note that all prices which are mentioned in economics textbooks (microeconomics, introductory economics, principles of economics, etc) pertain to relative prices or long-run prices. That is, they do not talk about market prices. The reason for this is because it is assumed/believed that market prices tend to fluctuate or hover around these relative prices. In other words, given a particular technology, these relative prices, in some sense, reflect the interrelationships in the economy. Hence, these natural/normal proces are studied in order to understand the workings of a capitalist economy.

Let me start with what is usually taught in various economics and management institutes across the world and even in higher secondary schools. Prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand. This implies that an excess dmand leads to a price hike. Let us look at an example: Suppose I go to a toy shop and ask for a Meccano set and immediately, another customer asks for the same set. But, the shop has only one Meccano set. Will the price of the Meccano set increase? Is such an explanation intuitive or common sensical? This example talks of an isolated case.

Economics is interested in the formation of a spectrum of prices at the level of the economy. Interestingly, macroeconomics has nothing to offer on price formation. Often, or rather everywhere in the world, economics is taught as microeconomics and macroeconomics. The interdependence and interrelationship present in any economy is inadequately addressed. The closest one comes is probably through the ‘circular flow’ diagram which highlights the role of the firm as well as the households. In this diagram, the complex and strutural interdependence is oversimplified to that of a 2-way interaction between the firm and household via labour market, capital market, etc and the state is shown to play the role of a facilitator. The interrelated production structures goes unnoticed or is seldom mentioned. Why is this important?

How can prices be determined? (The dominant factor will be mentioned.)

1) Demand & Supply – The prices which are determined in this way are the prices of vegetables and fish, prices of shares in the stock markets, price of real estate, etc. In some sense, these prices can be said to be supply determined. For, these commodities are more often subject to variations in supply than in demand.

2)Costs of Production – An alternative view which is present in the literature is that the prices of commodities are prices according to the prices paid to the means of production as well as adding a certain percentage as profit. According to Kalecki, the percentage depends on the monopoly power of the firm. What if the firm’s final product is an input for another firm? Will this affect the price of the product? This aspect is often forgotten in economics.

This forgetfulness is strongly associated to the lack of importance mainstream and even some heterodox economic theories gives to interrelationships in the production structures in an economy. To have a glimpse into this, one needs only to look at an Input-Output table.

If we assume (correctly) that production structures in a capitalist economy are interrelated then we can conceptually distinguish goods/services into – Basics and Non-Basics. [Sraffa 1960] Basic goods are those goods which directly or indirectly enter into the production of every commodity in the economy including its own. An obvious example would be foodgrains because they are needed for labourers and labour is required in all activities. And a tax on a basic good will have cascading effects on the prices of all the goods in the economy.

I shall quote Sraffa to point out the significance of accepting and studying interdependence.

The exchange-ratio (or relative prices) of non-basics is “merely a reflection of what must be paid for means of production, labour and profits in order to produce them – there is no mutual dependence.” [p 8, Sraffa 1960]

“But for a basic product there is another aspect to be considered. Its exchange-ratio depends as much on the use that is made of it ….” [pp 8-9, Sraffa 1960]

It is because of these issues that Sraffa uses values/prices than costs. Also, Sraffa knew that in an economy, “costs of production cannot be measured independently of, and prior to, the determination of the prices of products.” [p 9, Sraffa 1960] To conclude, dan we therefore think that Sraffa’s analysis is similar to the neoclassical analysis of price using demand and supply?

In brackets, Sraffa writes “one might be tempted, but it would be misleading, to say that ‘it depends as much on the Deamnd side as on the Supply side.’” [p 9, Sraffa 1960]

References

1) Kalecki, Michal (1971), Costs and Prices, in Selected Essays on the Dynamics of the Capitalist Economy 1933-1970, Cambridge University Press, pp. 43-61.
2) Sraffa, Piero (1960), Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Cambridge University Press.