Pure static economics is nothing but an abstract
picture [or model] of certain
economic facts, i.e. a
schema that should serve as a description about them. It
depends on certain
assumptions, and in this respect, it
is a creation of our
arbitrariness, just as every exact
science is. … [But] this does not prevent
theories from fitting facts.
(Schumpeter, 1908, 527; trans. by Shionoya, 1997,
103–4)
The aim of
“economic science” for Schumpeter is not to theorize and thus to explain
“reality”, because reality is very different from the scientific framework
constructed to analyze it. Science is not a “closed system” of the type
“whenever x, then y, where x is a dependent variable or function of y”. This
kind of “closedness” (Ab-schluss) is
in fact a tautology, as Bohm-Bawerk showed to the detriment of Marx, because
the effect follows necessarily from the definition of the cause. Thus, in
Marx’s “transformation problem” observable market prices in aggregate are determined by unobservable labour values in aggregate, making the empirical proof
of the theory a mere article of faith (of “metaphysics”, Joan Robinson would
say; “prophecy” for Schumpeter) because every aggregate can always be
homologated to another aggregate, no matter how heterogeneous! Every theory
that seeks to de-fine, to de-limit social reality as a “totality” must renounce
by that very reason all practical application – because such practical or
instrumental application can be made effectual only by renouncing the
“totality” of the theory, by renouncing the claim of theory to be able to
reconcile human interests, of being non-partisan, universal, neutral.
For Schumpeter the only neutrality possible for economic theory is not that of
being a “totalizing” science but that of being an instrument, a tool – indeed,
in his own definition falsely attributed to Joan Robinson but in fact derived
from Ernst Mach, economics is, like all science, “a box of tools”:
[O]
The fact
that economic quantities stand in such relations to one another legitimizes
their
separate treatment provided that they are uniquely determined . . . If a system
of equations
yields absolutely nothing but the proof of a uniquely determined
interdependence,
this is
already very much: it is the founding stone of a scientific structure.
(Schumpeter 1908: 33 - 4)
At the
interface of scientific model or schema and its extrinsication in social
reality lies the “tendency”. Science is an open system if its hypotheses represent tendencies that furnish a guide to
action by warning against the necessity
of the economic system, its “closedness”. The closed theory is “a box of
tools”, a frame-work (Entwurf)
from which hypotheses can be derived with which to frame and to correct reality according to one’s will. The aim of
science is to provide “a box of tools” needed to correct reality or at least to take into account the ineluctable
conflict contained in its axioms when we attempt “to bring them into being”, to
pro-duce them or turn them into reality, into ec-sistence.
It is
evident, then, that Schumpeter erred when he stated above that the
arbitrariness of the Schema does not prevent the theory from fitting the facts.
The opposite is true! It is the facts that must fit into the Schema – because the
Schema is devised to preserve the facts as they stand at present – to perpetuate
the established order! This is made devastatingly irrefutable by the very
assumptions that support the Schema!
The whole of pure
economics rests with Walras on the two
conditions that every
economic unit wants to maximize utility and
that demand for every
good equals supply. All his theorems follow
from· these two
assumption. Edgeworth, Barone, and others may
have supplemented his
work; Pareto and others may have gone
beyond it in individual
points: the significance of his work is not
thereby touched. Whoever
knows the origin and the workings of
the exact natural
sciences knows also that their great achievements
are, in method and
essence, of the same kind as Walras'. To find
exact forms for the
phenomena whose interdependence is given us
by experience, to reduce
these forms to, and derive them from, each
other: this is what
the physicists do, and this is what Walras did. (TGE 79)
Once again, bourgeois science is
neither a Sein nor a Sollen: it is a Mussen: it is not a “theory” that seeks to explain; it is merely a
formal analysis that seeks to frame reality to fit the assumptions implicit in
the analysis as the measure of the facts it selects! For bourgeois science, whatever is real is rational because the
“real” is not a Kantian Is or Ought but rather a Must: it is the way the world must
be for the bourgeoisie to maintain the rule of dead labour over living
labour by means of the wage relation. The singular aim of bourgeois economic
“science” is to turn theory into analysis – that is, to turn an
interpretation of reality as it is in terms of what “ought to be” into the
measurement or description of what is to ensure that it remains the
same. A theory lays out explicitly the values that will lead to the final
human goals, the ends (Latin, finis, end, goal) that motivated it
– it contains a Wert-rationalitat (Weber’s worth-rationality). By contrast, analysis wishes merely to
describe and measure an existing reality for the purpose of preserving and
perpetuating it:– it contains a Zweck-rationalitat (purposive
rationality).
Schumpeter's first book, The
Essence and Content of Theoretical
National Economics, published in 1908 when he
was twenty-five,
was one of the earliest
attempts to give a methodological foundation
to neoclassical economics.
His standpoint was influenced by the
precursors of logical
positivism, such as Mach, Poincare’, and Duhem.
Schumpeter’s methodology
in Wesen
can best be interpreted as instrumentalism,
i.e., the view that
theories are not descriptions but instruments
for deriving useful results and are neither true nor false. (Y. Shinoya,
“Instrumentalism in Schumpeter’s Economic Methodology”).
Shionoya is manifestly wrong with
his last sentence: true, for Schumpeter, a theory is an instrument, a tool, not
an explanation, least of all a teleology. But for that reason alone
it is a description containing a prescription in terms of
defining the logical space (German, Ort) within which facts may be
measured and fitted into the theoretical parameters of the theoretical Schema
(German, Entwurf). Once the bourgeoisie has managed to subsume the
entirety of social reproduction to capital and has therefore established a
veritable “society of capital” – a
society in the image and likeness of the wage relation -, then and only then
for it “whatever is real has now also become rational”! (This point of the adequacy
of bourgeois social reality to its analytical tools is made most perceptively
by H. Arendt, in Human Action, citing G. Myrdal.)
Simply pathetic is Joan Robinson’s attempt to
combat this Rationalisierung with the
romantic-existentialist and humanist protestations about the irreversibility of time – cf. her “Time
in Economic Theory” in On Re-Reading Marx
and “History vs. Equilibrium” [– or indeed Tony Lawson’s bemoaning of the loss
of “reality” in bourgeois economic theory]. This from the theoretician who
described economics as “a box of tools” and derided the Classical notion of
Value as “metaphysical”! For the negatives
Denken it is precisely the elimination of “metaphysical” notions such as
“time as history” - the “spatialisation” and mathematisation of time decried by
Bergson and Heidegger - that is one of its greatest achievements! Only by
eliminating the “experience” of time, the “reality” of time, the “metabolic
content” of human living activity – even time as kairos rather than chronos,
or worse still even in its ethereal version as Husserlian epoche’ or Bergsonian duree
– could the Neoclassics hope to establish general equilibrium as an “exact
science” founded on a system of simultaneous
equations! (Cf. Colletti’s
complete incomprehension of this problematic in his misguided attempt to
correct the Marxian notion of value with neo-Kantian epistemology in “From
Bergson to Marcuse” in Marxism and Hegel.)
This is a point that completely escapes Lawson in his assessment of “the
confused state of equilibrium theory” because he is too preoccupied with the
idea that a “closed” system simply abstracts from the “contingency” of
“existence” or “reality” – hence, the title to his work, “Economics and Reality”! For Lawson, and for Moura, a system is
“closed” if it does not allow for “contingency”, if it presumes to predict the
future and thereby banishes “history” – as if history were purely the realm of
contingency, of the aleatory! But this scientific “prediction” is the property
of all nomothetic social sciences,
and Lawson’s objection is both pathetic in the face of the brutal violence of
the bourgeoisie and unwarranted because no “science” is possible except as a
theoretical framework for a given political practice! Of course, even Heidegger
would not share Lawson’s “existentialist humanism”, the petulant pretense,
reminiscent of Sartre, that “human beings are free”, that they have “choice”!
(Cf. Heidegger’s Letter on Humanism.) Lawson has simply misunderstood Heidegger entirely because
“freedom-toward-death” is a property of Da-sein and not necessarily of human
beings. In essence, Da-sein is only “possibility”: it is the “free-dom” of
Hobbes and Schopenhauer or at best the “liberty” of liberalism (Locke, Constant),
not the “freedom” of philosophical rationalism from Plato to Rousseau and Marx;
and it is certainly not the teleological Freiheit
of Classical German Idealism.
The problem
with these critiques of Neoclassical Theory is not that they are wrong but rather
that they entirely miss the point of the political purpose (Zweck)
behind the theory! It is the effectuality
of “economic science” that we must examine, not its theoretical shortcomings or
logical inconsistencies – for all theories are internally inconsistent and even
Robinson opined that “a one-to-one map of reality is useless”. But a map of
“reality” serves the purposes of those who draw it – it is never “neutral”, and
that is the point that the obtuse Robinson could not see because she was too
busy caviling at the “flaws” in bourgeois economic theory when in fact they
were “strategies”. These people still believe that it is possible “to humanize”
economics without changing its real
subject-matter – “the economy”, the frame-work of violence as imposed by the
bourgeoisie!
Schumpeter’ s scientific hypothesis is simultaneously a logical requirement of the concept of
pure competition and the practical
implementation of the concept, which is what makes it “logical” yet not
“closed” or self-referential and therefore tautological. To repeat, a closed
system is one in which the final effect is connected by definition to the
initial cause so that cause becomes effect and effect becomes cause – a circulus vitiosus. Here instead the real
outcome of a concept is the result of its practical implementation and causality plays no role whatsoever in
the connection between concept and reality. The outcome is what must occur if the concept is to be realized; but there is no causality between the concept and its
realization. Hence, bourgeois economic “science” cannot tell us, ethically or
deontologically, what to do; it can
tell us only what we must do if we
wish to attain a particular goal. It is this instrumental purpose
dictated by the inevitable conflict or clash of wills in society that is
theorised by economic science and that can be applied to the reality of society
to achieve stated goals. Equilibrium theory assumes that all economic agents
are equal participants in the process of market competition both formally and
materially. Dynamic theory instead assumes that for the system to escape the
stagnant gravitational pull of competitive forces keeping the system at
equilibrium there must be “frictions”, sociological and historical, that arise
from the operation of the market process
itself and that lead it away from theoretical equilibrium. Both these theories
can be “pure”, but the latter can be so only in the sense that it considers the
empirical operation of economic agents in the social network.
No comments:
Post a Comment