著者

森岡 真史

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.47, no.2, pp.89-100, 2010-07-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Nobuo OKISHIO (1927-2003) is famous as one of pioneers in the introduction of mathematical model analysis into Marxian economics. However, there is no common understanding about what is the essence of Okishio's economics. The purpose of this paper is to explore theoretical and methodological features of Okishio's economics through investigation of his works concerning the principles of capitalism. Naturally this task involves a critical review of some aspects in its accomplishments. Okishio's theory of the general principles of capitalism consists of four parts: reproduction structure, wage-price relation, short-term equilibrium, and capital accumulation. These four parts are further divided into two groups. The first two parts analyze the objective structure of capitalist production by Leontief type input-output models. The latter two parts deal with the mechanism which keeps the fluctuation of real wage rate within a certain range through business cycle. Here Okishio adopts the framework of Keynes-Harrod type macro model which presupposes the independence of the demand for investment. These four parts are mutually connected and each presupposes others. As a whole, they constitute a theoretical system explaining the reproduction of capitalist economy. His description of the reproduction of capitalist relations is completed through the whole of these four parts. Starting from the relation between physical quantities and labor hour, he critically and rigorously reconstructed Marx's theory of value and exploitation. By clarifying the concept of surplus labor, he succeeded to show internal linkage between categories in the world of commodity exchange and objective structure of reproduction. At the same time it is also possible to regard Okishio as one of the most penetrating internal critics of Marx's value theory. On the problem of wage-price relation, he elucidated the law of the uniform profit rate caused by the change of technology and real wage. This analysis is based on the assumption that the choice of technique by capitalists follows the cost-minimizing principle. Beyond the analysis of objective structure of capitalist economy, Okishio tried to build a coherent theory of business cycle as the process of cumulative disequilibrium by clarifying the peculiarity of the decision-making of capitalists concerning production, employment and investment. Considering that many Marxian economists had been indifferent to the problem of how individual capitalist behaved, Okishio's attempt was certainly a great challenge. However, his theory on this matter is unsatisfactory on several counts. His characterization of capitalist's supply behavior does not correspond to his formal model. His analysis of business cycle lacks explanation of the mechanism preventing the perpetuation of cumulative disequilibrium. In spite of Okishio's exceptional talent and passion, his endeavors to incorporate the theory of individual choice and behavior into the explanation of reproduction of capitalism did not reach the goal. Thus Okishio's economics has left us a difficult problem to combine structural and behavioral analysis into single coherent theoretical framework.

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.50, no.4, pp.60-72, 2014-01-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

Nobuo Okishio (1927-2003) and Michio Morishima (1923-2004) belonged to the same generation. Both of them started their study of economics through Hicks's Value and Capital. Because of Okishio's conversion from Hicksian to Marxian economics, their academic path once separated in the mid-1950s. However, since the late-1960s Morishima undertook a reformulation of Marxian value theory. In the 1970s He also accepted Keynes's principle of effective demand as the proper description of contemporary capitalism where the Say's Law does not hold true anymore. The purpose of this paper is to overview Okishio's and Morishima's economics and highlight some important characteristics common to them. Since the author has already made a detailed argument on Okishio in a previous essay, this paper puts focus on Morishima's economics. Morishima regarded theories as a set of tools which should be selected depending on features of the economy to be investigated. Thus his economics has no universal "principle". While making substantial contributions to the elaboration of the general equilibrium theory, he was well aware that adherence to strict generality would be theoretically barren. In his view the scope of analysis based on optimization is limited also by the fact that "sociological factors" play crucial roles in labor market. He showed keen interest in concrete processes of market transactions and emphasized the necessity to analyze the movement of temporary equilibrium prices over periods. Morishima's theoretical transition in late 1960's was twofold. In terms of analytical method he adopted von Neumann's framework. More importantly, in terms of the basic understanding of capitalism, he embraced Keynes. Morishima indicated that equalization of the return rates of durable goods is incompatible with full employment of factors unless the Say's Law is assumed. In connection with this, he sought to construct a price theory which could explain both prices determined by auction and prices set by firms based on the full-cost principle. In Capital and Credit Morishima tried to incorporate into his theory the roles of entrepreneurs and bankers as co-creators of "production possibility set". Okishio and Morishima were outstanding internal critics of the theories upon which they themselves had relied. Okishio's reformulation of Marx's economics contains fundamental criticism against it. Morishima's early works include pertinent insight into the limits of Walrasian-Hicksian approach. hey saw economy as a time-consuming circular process accompanied with complicated interrelations between its various agents and sectors. One of the reasons why they were not impressed with Sraffa might be that they had already established circulation-based view of economy. On Marxian value and exploitation theory, there were no substantial disagreement between them. Rejecting the Say's Law clearly, Okishio and Morishima built their theory on the principle of effective demand. They regard the movement of capital stocks as one of basic factors determining the dynamics of capitalist economy. However, advocacy of Keynes brought disharmony into their theoretical systems. Okishio's Keynesian short-term theory is not consistently connected with Marxian longterm theory. There remained a large gap between Morishima's vision of "the anti-Say's Law system" and his formalized Neumann-type model. Clarification of these common features would be significant as a preparation for more comprehensive comparison of their economics.

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.1, pp.26-38, 2011-04-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

This paper argues what socialism was in the last two centuries and what it still can be in the coming age through reconsideration of the relation among three aspects of Marxism, that is, scientific recognition of reality, struggle for social change, and norms which leads value judgment. Early socialists saw in capitalist society an extreme differentiation over wealth and labor. They criticized capitalism based on the norms that everyone has the right to exist and develop humanly and that everyone has the duty to live not on privately owned property but on his or her own labor. With a few exceptions, most of early socialists advocated universal labor obligation and proclaimed radical reform including the abolition of market and wage labor. While Marx started from this tradition, he drastically transformed the historical nature of socialism. According to Marx's historical materialism, the transition from capitalism to socialism is not a social reform realizing specific norms, but a historical inevitability governed by the objective law of social development. At the same time he admitted that human's conscious actions can affect this transition within a certain bounds. From this viewpoint, the ultimate justice lies in the activity to promote this transition based on scientific recognition of the law. Therefore in Marxism the development of productive force and the victory of labor class in classstruggle are the highest norms which have priority over any other norms. Lenin added following three original propositions to classical Marxism. First, only the party of Marxist revolutionaries is able to lead labor class based on precise recognition of their genuine interests. Secondly, there is no moral restridion in the choice of means of struggle as far as it is necessary for revolution. Thirdly, on the outbreak of the imperialist war the age of world socialist revolution on a global scale begins. These propositions justified communist parties of any country to raise a revolution regardless of the stage of domestic economic development and to use unlimited revolutionary violence against class-enemy. The socialist system of the 20-th century was Leninist regime in that the communist party anointed itself as the permanent and omnipotent master of the people. It also embraced Marxist ideology in that it pursued rapid development of the productive force and political struggle to defeat domestic and foreign class-enemy as the highest norms. Furthermore, this system partially realized the ideal of early socialism in that abolished unearned income and guaranteed its citizen a minimum level of existence. In order for socialism to be a thought which can contribute to social change in the 21-st century, first of all we must separate it off from the dogma of historical inevitability. This task is naturally associated with clarification of the socialist norms which are to be realized through social reform. Considering the past history where the pursuit of labor obligation resulted in the persecution of "non-worker" and the creation of forced labor system, clarification of the norms should be made in the direction to put the right to exist and develop humanly at the center of socialist norms and to reconsider the relation between this right and other norms relating freedom, equality, democracy and economic development.

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

立命館大学国際関係学会

雑誌

立命館国際研究 = Ritsumeikan kokusai kenkyu / The Ritsumeikan journal of international studies (ISSN:09152008)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.33, no.4, pp.125-149, 2021-03

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2007, no.36, pp.159-172, 2007 (Released:2010-05-31)

---

Just after the February Revolution in 1917 Boris Brutzkus actively participated into the public debate over the agrarian reform. This paper shows how he conceived the task of reform under the newborn democratic government. Although his view on this problem is less known than his famous lecture on Marxist socialist economy in 1920, it deserves attention for its unique perspective placing the peasant farming as a vital element in capitalistic development of the Russian economy. His focus of criticism in this period was Russian Populists (Narodniki) who were at that time in the midst of popularity. He strongly warned that their agitation about the overall land distribution without compensation and redemption would not only lead sweeping economic catastrophe but also seriously endanger the fate of democracy.While Populists see the root of agrarian crisis in the land shortage among peasants, Brutzkus points out that the essence of the land shortage was accumulation of agrarian overpopulation caused by the extremely sluggish pace of Russian economic growth. Because of this, Russian industry could neither absorb the increase of rural population nor provide domestic market for agricultural products. In addition, on the side of villages the communal ownership of land held back the population flow into cities. Thus the solution of agrarian crisis needs also the development of industrial production. In his opinion such a development is possible only under capitalism. Therefore the land reform must be compatible with the general framework of capitalist economy. In this connection Brutzkus emphasizes the importance to preserve Stolypin's legislations with necessary democratic revisions. Referring to the experiences of Western countries, he advocates that the peasant's private ownership of land with the system of well-organized mortgage credit can promote intensification of peasant farming and flow of rural surplus population into cities. Since land is now one of precious assets of people, every peasant who receives land must bear responsibility to the national economy for its adequate utilization through the payment of rent corresponding to the prices of expropriated land. From these considerations Brutzkus urges intellectuals to tell people honestly that land cannot be distributed freely. He believes that the success of land reform depends on peasant's individual initiative and energy and for this end the immense energy of excited people must be transformed into creative force for economic construction.Brutzkus' standpoint was similar with those of Neo-populists (Neonarodniki) in its recognition of peasant farming's vitality and deep concern on the fate of national economy. However, Neo-populists still shared with traditional Populists negative attitude toward capitalism and the private land ownership. Most of Russian liberals were also sympathetic to the socialization of land in a moderate form. These circumstances placed Brutzkus in a quite isolated position. The Populist program was adopted by Bolsheviks and put into execution by communal peasants. In this point the October Revolution was the Populist agrarian revolution. Along with his critique of Marxist socialism, Brutzkus' penetrating criticism against Populism has great historical significance in its deep insight and civil bravery.

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2003, no.32, pp.162-174, 2003 (Released:2010-05-31)

---

Boris Brutzkus is well-known for his pioneering and penetrating criticism against the Socialist economy. However, relatively less known is the fact that he defended the social role of government to protect the interest of the people. The purpose of this paper is to reconstruct and appreciate his vision of economic development underlying such a unique standpoint.For this purpose Brutzkus's following two important contributions will be investigated: i) his report “Economic Precondition for the Reconstruction of Agriculture” made at the All Russian Congress of Agronomists held in March 1922; ii) his paper “Agrarian Overpopulation and Agrarian Institution” published in the organ of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture in June/July 1922. Both of them include profound insight into the causes of catastrophic destruction of Russian agriculture after the October Revolution as well as several important policy proposals for its restoration.Brutzkus attributes the root cause of agrarian catastrophe to the “black redistribution” and emphasizes that it is not only the Soviet government but also all of the intellectuals and the people who must free themselves from the illusionary idea that the agrarian problem can be solved by nationwide land redistribution. Fully recognizing the limits of NEP as partial liberalization under the Communist dictatorship, he supports the basic direction of NEP for the reason that it serves the interest of Russian national economy.In his schema of national economy, the dynamic agro-industrial linkage, especially the smooth flow of labor from agriculture to urban industry constitutes one of the essential factors in the process of economic development. Coupled with slowness of industrialization, Russian land community hindered this flow of population and became the hotbed of agrarian overpopulation. Agrarian policies and agrarian institutions must be favorable for such a flow and at the same time soften the pain attendant on it. From this follows the necessity of guaranteeing peasants the right to dispose of their land freely. Owing to some fundamental differences between agriculture and industry, this right brings not the victory of agrarian capitalism but promotes the growth of peasant economies and their adaptation to the market environment.For Brutzkus, the national economy is a huge social framework giving its members economic and cultural wealth that they cannot produce alone. Flowering of individual freedom needs development of the national economy. The reason he affirms capitalism and rejects Marxian Socialism is that he firmly believes that the development of national economy in the industrialization era is possible only under capitalism and that individual freedom is inseparable from the private ownership of the means of production. However, as is shown in his argument of the relative advantage of peasant economy in agriculture, dominance of capitalism is neither exclusive nor unconditional even in the market. His vision of the desirable national economy can be characterized by it compositeness and variety created by the mixture both of capitalist institutions playing the leading part and of various kinds of non-capitalist institutions playing secondary but often essential roles.The above-described Brutzkus's vision is highly suggestive in its rare combination of economic logic and due attention to historical factors. Understanding of this vision will be of considerable help in an in-depth appraisal of his critical analysis on the Soviet economy.

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.41, no.3, pp.54-65, 2004-10-20 (Released:2017-04-25)

---

This paper critically investigates the classical preposition that the natural prices are the center of gravitation towards which market prices should move through the equalization process of industries' rates of profit. While intensively studied in 1980s and early 90s, in recent years concern for this subject seems to have declined mainly because a series of studies showed that it was by no means easy to construct a model in which rates of profit tended to be equalized. The purpose to take up this problem here is to reconsider the logic of classical argument on gravitation and to analyze systematically the dynamic nature of cross adjustment process where differentials in profit rates trigger the change of production and excess demand in each industry leads to the change of market price. In spite of the erroneous reasoning about the relation between price deviations and profit deviations, if the positive profit deviation in one industry always leads fall of its market price, the classical argument on gravitation is basically valid. The real flaw in the classical argument is that it overlooks the derived change of demand and thus fails to connect price-production movements with the balance between production and demand. This flaw can be removed by combining the adjustment of production caused by differentials in profit rates with the price movement reacting to excess demand. Thus whether the classical argument is right or wrong eventually depends on the dynamic nature of cross adjustment process. Except for few particular cases, cross adjustment brings about at best the permanent fluctuation of production and prices within a closed orbit and quite often leads to their unstable movement. The analysis in this paper demonstrates the above by multi-sector models with various assumptions on time and production period. Models consisting of three or more sectors are more likely to be instable than two-sector models. Furthermore, cross adjustment always causes instabity in discrete time models. Particularly notable is the fact that introduction of the budget constraint does not contribute to the stability of cross adjustment. It is possible to give classical cross adjustment asymptotic stability by introducing 'neo-classical' price substitution effect or 'Keynesian' quantity adjustment. However, considering the deep differences among classical, neo-classical and Keynesian economics in their theories of production adjustment, their mechanical conjugation is of little theoretical significance, even though cross adjustment extended by such conjugation may gain stability. It would be hasty to interpret the above results as 'refutation' of the classical preposition on equalization of profit rates. There are many prepositions or hypothesis in economics lacking logical 'proof' but frequently used for their usefulness or as stylized empirical fact. For the time being, the classical preposition may be regarded one of those prepositions. The model analysis in this paper throws serious doubts not to the classical preposition itself but rather to its underlying mechanisms of price-production adjustment supposed by classical economists. Especially, the mechanisms that firms increase (decrease) their production when their profit rates are above (below) the average level does not sufficiently refrect one of the most important features of capitalist economy that capitalist firms are usually under demand constraint. At any rate, future search of theoretical foundation of profit equalization should start from the different vision on the fluctuation process triggered by differentials in profit rates.

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

立命館大学

雑誌

立命館国際研究 (ISSN:09152008)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.21, no.3, pp.639-670, 2009-03

著者

森岡真史

出版者

立命館大学

雑誌

立命館国際研究

巻号頁・発行日

vol.21, no.3, 2009-03

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

比較経済体制学会

雑誌

社会主義経済学会会報 (ISSN:18839789)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1992, no.30, pp.47-53, 1992-11-30 (Released:2009-07-31)

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

比較経済体制学会

雑誌

比較経済体制学会会報 (ISSN:18839797)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.1995, no.33, pp.45-48, 1995-11-01 (Released:2009-07-31)

参考文献数

5

---

ソ連・東欧の体制転換は,社会主義システムにおける独裁と不効率とに対する徹底した批判者である現代オーストリア学派にとって有利な出来事であった.しかし同時に,これらの批判者は,そのように欠陥に満ちたシステムがなぜ数十年にわたって存続・成長しえたかという問題に説明を与える課題に直面している.特に,ミーゼスは,社会主義の不効率性だけでなく,実行不可能性をも主張してきたから,彼の社会主義批判と,ソ連・東欧などに見られた歴史上の社会主義の数十年間の存続とはどのような関係にあるのかという疑問が生じるのは当然であろう(Prychitko,1994,p.229).すなわち,もしもミーゼスが批判した社会主義と歴史上の社会主義とが同一ならばミーゼスの立場は破綻するし,逆に両者が全く交わるところがなければ,やはりミーゼスの社会主義批判の意義はおおいに減殺される.したがってミーゼスの社会主義批判に何らかの積極的意義を認めるならば,2つの社会主義がどの点で重なり合い,またどの点で異なるのかを,彼のソ連解釈の批判的検討を通じて明らかにすることが必要である.

著者

森岡 真史

出版者

経済理論学会

雑誌

季刊経済理論 (ISSN:18825184)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.47, no.2, pp.89-100, 2010-07-20

---

Nobuo OKISHIO (1927-2003) is famous as one of pioneers in the introduction of mathematical model analysis into Marxian economics. However, there is no common understanding about what is the essence of Okishio's economics. The purpose of this paper is to explore theoretical and methodological features of Okishio's economics through investigation of his works concerning the principles of capitalism. Naturally this task involves a critical review of some aspects in its accomplishments. Okishio's theory of the general principles of capitalism consists of four parts: reproduction structure, wage-price relation, short-term equilibrium, and capital accumulation. These four parts are further divided into two groups. The first two parts analyze the objective structure of capitalist production by Leontief type input-output models. The latter two parts deal with the mechanism which keeps the fluctuation of real wage rate within a certain range through business cycle. Here Okishio adopts the framework of Keynes-Harrod type macro model which presupposes the independence of the demand for investment. These four parts are mutually connected and each presupposes others. As a whole, they constitute a theoretical system explaining the reproduction of capitalist economy. His description of the reproduction of capitalist relations is completed through the whole of these four parts. Starting from the relation between physical quantities and labor hour, he critically and rigorously reconstructed Marx's theory of value and exploitation. By clarifying the concept of surplus labor, he succeeded to show internal linkage between categories in the world of commodity exchange and objective structure of reproduction. At the same time it is also possible to regard Okishio as one of the most penetrating internal critics of Marx's value theory. On the problem of wage-price relation, he elucidated the law of the uniform profit rate caused by the change of technology and real wage. This analysis is based on the assumption that the choice of technique by capitalists follows the cost-minimizing principle. Beyond the analysis of objective structure of capitalist economy, Okishio tried to build a coherent theory of business cycle as the process of cumulative disequilibrium by clarifying the peculiarity of the decision-making of capitalists concerning production, employment and investment. Considering that many Marxian economists had been indifferent to the problem of how individual capitalist behaved, Okishio's attempt was certainly a great challenge. However, his theory on this matter is unsatisfactory on several counts. His characterization of capitalist's supply behavior does not correspond to his formal model. His analysis of business cycle lacks explanation of the mechanism preventing the perpetuation of cumulative disequilibrium. In spite of Okishio's exceptional talent and passion, his endeavors to incorporate the theory of individual choice and behavior into the explanation of reproduction of capitalism did not reach the goal. Thus Okishio's economics has left us a difficult problem to combine structural and behavioral analysis into single coherent theoretical framework.