Labour Market and Exploitation of Labour

C. HELLER – LABOUR MARKET AND EXPLOITATION OF LABOUR...
13
LABOUR MARKET AND EXPLOITATION

OF LABOUR IN JOAN ROBINSON’S THE
ECONOMICS OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION 1
Claudia Heller
Departamento de Economia
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp), Araraquara
1. INTRODUCTION
Joan Robinson’s The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933) is correctly

considered a fundamental contribution to the history of the partial analysis
theory. Nonetheless, there are different evaluations of the role it has played
in the evolution of microeconomics. One is Joseph Schumpeter’s review of
the book.2 According to him, Joan Robinson shaped a general analytical tool
in which perfect (or pure) competition and monopoly were two of many
possible market structures — in fact, two special and distinct structures of
the general case. The keystone of this “box of tools” — Joan Robinson’s ex-
pression3 — was the decreasing demand curve associated to a decreasing
marginal revenue curve. Different forms and positions of those curves, com-
bined with different forms and positions of average and marginal cost curves
formed various market structures. This method of various combinations
formed the basis of the broad (or general) case of non-perfect competition.
George Shackle stands for another kind of interpretation. In his well-
known The Years of High Theory (1967), he considered that Joan Robinson
took Sraffa’s criticism4 as a suggestion to disregard perfect competition as
paradigmatic and to embrace its opposite, monopoly. This kind of under-
standing of Joan Robinson’s approach suggests that she adopted imperfect
competition in order to maintain the Marshallian tradition of partial analy-
sis. It also suggests that her procedure could be seen as completely different
from that of authors who have chosen to maintain perfect competition as-
sumptions in favour of the general equilibrium analysis.5
13
14 REVISTA DE ECONOMIA CONTEMPORÂNEA Nº 3 JAN. – JUN. DE 1998
There have been several debates on the scope of the tools used in The
Economics of Imperfect Competition. These debates include discussions con-
cerning its originality vis-à-vis the author’s precursors (such as Cournot,
Marshall and Pigou), as well as her contemporaries, particularly Edward
Chamberlin’s The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (1933). These con-
troversies have not yet ended and they express the enduring significance
of the theory developed in the early 1930’s. Evident examples of the im-
portance of the subject are the contentions about Keynes having or not as-
sumed, implicitly or explicitly, the supposition of imperfect competition
in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. These conten-
tions ramify into further discussions (which are somewhat independent
of Keynes’s own assessments) about the (in)compatibility of his ideas with
(im)perfect competition in the goods market, the financial market, and the
labour market.6
A very scarce feature in any of those controversies is the relation of Joan
Robinson’s The Economics of Imperfect Competition to Keynes’s theory of
employment.7 From the point of view of the historian of economic theory
this is somewhat surprising. After all, Joan Robinson took an active part in
the “Cambridge Circus” (which officially operated from January to May
1931), discussing Keynes’s Treatise on Money and helping to form some of
the main ideas that became the touchstones of his General Theory.8 A care-
ful reading of The Economics of Imperfect Competition shows that the tools
created or (in order not to get into the polemics around originality) used by
Joan Robinson emphasized the labour market. This particular subject pre-
vailed in almost one third of her book and was essential to her concept of
labour exploitation, one of her most original and controversial contribu-
tions in that book.
For these reasons this paper takes the opposite course to what has been
traditional. It aims to discuss Joan Robinson’s emphasis on the problem of
unemployment, as it appeared in The Economics of Imperfect Competition.
However, it is important to make it clear that this paper does not suggest
she was perfectly aware of that particular feature of her book at the time she
wrote it.
The next section discusses Joan Robinson’s view on the demand curve of
a factor of production, which she considers to be dependent of the demand
C. HELLER – LABOUR MARKET AND EXPLOITATION OF LABOUR... 15
curve of the commodity to be produced by using that factor. Considering

labour as the main factor of production, she concludes that the level of em-
ployment depends on the expected demand for commodities. The paper sug-
gests that this view is very similar to Keynes’s principle of effective demand.
Section three deals with Joan Robinson’s concept of exploitation, which
occurs when workers are paid less than the value of their marginal product.
It also discusses Joan Robinson’s propositions to lessen exploitation and
their possible outcomes.
The fourth section analyses some of the most important commentators’
remarks, showing that only a few of them perceived the important role
played by the labour market in Joan Robinson’s The Economics of Imperfect
Competition and its relation to the problem of unemployment.
The final section stresses two main conclusions: in Joan Robinson’s view
unemployment is not due to imperfect market conditions; it depends
on demand (profit expectations), on the technical conditions of produc-
tion (factor substitution), and on the supply of other factors of production
(costs). The second conclusion is that a policy aiming to remove imperfec-
tion can, as matter of fact, become unfavourable to the working class be-
cause it can worsen their condition as consumers and reduce employment.
2. DEMAND FOR LABOUR: DETERMINANT FACTORS OF THE LEVEL OF

EMPLOYMENT IN THE ECONOMICS OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION
The manner by which Joan Robinson built the supply curve of a commodity
in The Economics of Imperfect Competition is noteworthy. Her point of de-
parture was the demand curve for a factor of production which is ruled by
determinants that have no direct relation to the analysis and construction of
an ordinary demand curve for commodities. Although she used the concept
of marginal utility, she believed that the analysis of the buyer of factors of
production is different from that of the buyer of commodities because “fac-
tors of production are not bought for their own sake, but for the sake of
earning money income by selling the commodities which they produce”
(Robinson, 1933a, p. 215).
According to her, demand for factors of production depended on the
expectation of profits. Consequently, the construction of the supply curve
of any commodity was fundamentally and paradoxically based on the ex-

pected demand for the commodity and on the behaviour of other buyers
of factors of production. The expression “paradoxically” used above refers
to the fact that this “technique” of construction of a supply curve of a
commodity (through its demand) apparently disregards the basic principle
of partial analysis, which states that the production or supply conditions of
any commodity should be mutually independent as well as independent
of the supply and demand conditions of any other commodity. It should be
noticed, nevertheless, that her “technique” was not inconsistent with the
ceteris paribus condition. At each step Joan Robinson conceived that every-
thing else remained unchanged. She explicitly defined, for instance, that
“the demand curve for any one factor of production will depend upon the
demand curve for the commodity, the technical conditions of production
and the supply curves of the other factors of production” (Robinson, 1933a,
p. 235). But in order to determine the demand price of the factor of produc-
tion in question, she assumed that both the demand curve for the commod-
ity and the supply curve of all other factors were known and unchanging.
She made the same assumption regarding the technical conditions of pro-
duction. It is also important to note that the principle of effective demand
was underlying the concept of demand for factors of production. In other
words: according to Joan Robinson, production only occurs when profits
are expected; therefore the demand for factors of production exists only
when these expectations are positive.
It is worth noting that Joan Robinson analysed the market of factors of
production under the assumptions of perfect competition and of monopoly
(or monopsony, to be more precise). Besides, the concepts of monopoly and
monopsony embraced both a stricter sense (a single seller or a single buyer)
and a larger sense of non perfect competition or even oligopoly.9 Joan
Robinson compared those structures under the criteria of average cost of
production, of output and of level of employment needed for that output.
Similarly to the definition of perfect competition among producers per-
ceived as sellers (a perfectly elastic demand curve for each single producer
or seller), perfect competition among producers perceived as buyers of fac-
tors of production was defined by the existence of a perfect elastic supply
curve for each: “a buyer can walk into a shop and buy as much as he pleases
at the current price. If he offers less he can buy nothing, and if he offered a
little more he would engross the whole supply” (Robinson, 1933a, p. 216).
Also, similarly to the two conditions needed for perfect competition among
producers (sellers) of commodities, such as a large number of sellers and
indifference from the part of commodities consumers as to who their sup-
plier is, perfect competition among buyers of factors of production needed
a large number of buyers and sellers’ indifference as to who their buyers
would be.10
Joan Robinson conducted her analysis assuming many possibilities, one
at a time. She assumed different elasticities of the supply curve of factors,
which could generate constant, increasing or decreasing supply prices. She
also analysed the possible outcomes from a monopsony that was also a price
discriminator. Additionally, she took into account the relation between
monopoly and monopsony, not in the traditional sense of a bilateral mo-
nopoly, but in its very opposite, that is, the idea that a single producer may
quite frequently be monopsonist of the factor of production he uses.11
Joan Robinson emphasized the demand for labour (the “labour factor”)
and assumed that workers and/or unions (single and/or organised labour
suppliers) cannot create jobs. She stressed the idea that labour suppliers
have a weaker bargaining strength than employers for setting wages. While
this did not mean that they should be seen as price takers, it did mean that
they should at least be viewed as quantity takers. Demand for a factor of
production depended upon demand for the commodity (to which that fac-
tor contributed), upon technical production conditions and upon the sup-
ply curves of any other factor of production (for that commodity). This was
due to what has already been mentioned in this paper. For Joan Robinson,
factors of production are demanded for the sake of earning money income
through the selling of commodities produced by them. Demand for any
factor including labour varied in form, position and elasticity according to
who was the demanding agent, or, to state it clearly, according to the differ-
ent possible market imperfections (which included the commodities and/or
factor markets). It also varied according to technical conditions of pro-
duction among which Joan Robinson stressed the possibility of factor sub-
stitution (due to or independent of relative scarcity) and the feasibility of
large scale economies.
Throughout the book Joan Robinson argued (and gave many examples)
that monopoly did not necessarily produce a smaller output nor did it
necessarily sell it at a higher price than competition. She also argued that
monopoly did not necessarily employ a smaller quantity of any factor (in-
cluding labour) and did not necessarily pay less for those factors (wages)
than perfect competition. She compared both structures under the criteria
of quantity of factors used and considered different and alternative condi-
tions of production such as factor scarcity (and supply elasticity), economic
and technical possibilities of factor substitution (and substitution elastic-
ity), and economies of large scale of production. She came to the conclusion
that monopolies were capable of producing at lower costs than perfect com-
petition and of taking advantage of larger productivity. This was dependent
upon the technical conditions of factor substitution, market conditions of
the supply of factors, and market conditions of the demand for commodi-
ties. A shift in the demand for the commodity that induced a modification
in output would rebound in a change of factors usage. This would cause a
change in factor prices, which in turn (if technically possible) could induce
further factor substitution, and so on.
Hence, according to Joan Robinson, imperfect competition could pro-
duce a larger output and use a larger amount of factors due to its greater
capability to change factor combinations. Because she assumed the possibil-
ity of monopoly to employ more labour than perfect competition she came
to the important conclusion that unemployment was not due to market im-
perfections. It seems that Joan Robinson was not fully nor even partially
aware of this important outcome of her reasoning. It is clear, however, that
the result of her arguments is perfectly consistent with the principle of effec-
tive demand, the main proposition of Keynes’s theory of employment.
3. THE CONCEPT OF LABOUR EXPLOITATION IN

THE ECONOMICS OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION
Joan Robinson’s definition of labour exploitation had nothing to do with the

concept originated in the labour theory of value. Her tools and audience
in the early 1930’s where those related to the marginal theory of value and
not to Marxism.12 According to Joan Robinson’s definition of exploitation in
The Economics of Imperfect Competition, it occurred when workers were paid

less than the value of their marginal product. In her words: “a group of work-
ers are being exploited when their wage is less than the marginal physical
product that they are producing, valued at the price at which it is being sold”
(Robinson, 1933a, p. 283). It is essential to describe some of her previous defi-
nitions to understand her concept of exploitation. She defined “marginal
physical productivity of labour” as “the increment of output caused by em-
ploying an additional unit of labour with a fixed expenditure on other fac-
tors” (Robinson, 1933a, p. 236), and “marginal productivity of labour” as
“the increment of value of the total output caused by employing and addi-
tional man, the total value of other factors remaining unchanged” (Robinson,
1933a, p. 237). In other words: marginal productivity (or marginal product)
equals marginal physical productivity (or marginal physical product) multi-
plied by the marginal revenue of the firm under analysis.13 Should demand
for the commodity under consideration be perfectly elastic, marginal revenue
would be constant and equal to the price of one unit of the commodity. In
this case marginal product would be equal to the value of the physical mar-
ginal product. Should demand for the commodity under consideration be
imperfectly elastic, marginal revenue would be less than price and the mar-
ginal product would be less than the value of the physical marginal product.14
Obedient to the maximization principle, a firm would employ a number
of workers whose net marginal product equalled marginal cost of labour.
This is a valid relation, whether the seller sells his or her commodity and
buys his or her factors (mainly labour) in perfect markets or deals in imper-
fect markets. In the latter case, however, the price of the commodity and
the price of labour are dependent of the number of men employed. When
wages equal the average product of labour, the employer receives “normal
profits” (similarly, when wages are less there would be extraordinary prof-
its, and vice-versa: when wages are higher, losses occur). It is important to
stress that normal or extraordinary profits or losses do not mean exploita-
tion in Joan Robinson’s sense, for she defined exploitation comparing wage
to the value of the marginal physical product, not to the value of the average
physical product.
According to Joan Robinson, exploitation was usually conceived to be
due to the workers’ weaker bargaining power than the employers’, so that
Trade Unions or State action could eliminate or at least reduce exploitation.

She did not disagree to that, but rather underlined that “the fundamental
cause of exploitation w[ould] be found to be the lack of perfect elasticity in
the supply of labour or in the demand for commodities” (Robinson, 1933a,
p. 281). She based her rationale on her own definition of exploitation in
terms of the value of the net marginal physical product of labour and identi-
fied two main classes of causes for exploitation. The first one she called mo-
nopolistic exploitation, due to imperfections in the commodities market
(even if labour supplies were perfectly elastic). The second one, monop-
sonistic exploitation, was due to imperfect elasticity of the supply of labour
(even if the seller sold the commodity in a perfectly competitive market).15
The monopolistic kind of exploitation due to imperfections in the com-
modities market was not removable through wage rises. A wage increase
would in fact enlarge unemployment if it led to factor substitution. Accord-
ing to Joan Robinson, when imperfection in the commodities market is due
to a monopoly in the sense of a single seller, price control could be a pos-
sible solution but only if it could prevent prices from being superior to the
average cost of production. In that case, extraordinary profits would be
eliminated and the price to be multiplied by the marginal physical product
would be equivalent to the competitive price, which would also eliminate
exploitation.
When monopoly is understood in its broader sense of general imperfect
competition there can be an alternative to price control: the elimination
of entry barriers would equal wages to the average product of labour and
eliminate extraordinary profits. Even if wages equalled the marginal product
of a firm there would still be exploitation, because wages would remain infe-
rior to the marginal physical product valued at the commodity price (for de-
mand would not be perfectly elastic). Such a strategy, therefore, would not
eliminate exploitation. Furthermore, it would have some countervailing ef-
fects: without entry barriers, firms would expand and their expansion could
lead to factor substitution (due to new relative factor prices and/or the ap-
pearance of economies of large scale of production), possibly resulting in
lower levels of employment.
Joan Robinson’s analysis was in fact much more complex and detailed
than that. She took into account the aggregate demand elasticity for the
commodity under consideration and its relation to the cost of production,

which could in turn be altered in many different ways, depending on the
conditions of supply of the other factors. It is possible to summarise her
main reasoning: when the market is imperfect mechanization has a greater
plausibility, but the advantages or the necessity of a higher degree of mecha-
nization may be less, hence the likelihood of maintaining the level of em-
ployment is higher. On the other hand, if prices were higher in imperfect
markets, the worker who benefits from a higher level of employment might
suffer the disadvantage of paying a higher price as a consumer.
Should exploitation be due to imperfections in the labour market,16
the employer would employ the number of workers whose marginal cost
equalled the marginal product of labour. In this case wage would equal the
supply price of the men employed, which is inferior to the value of the mar-
ginal physical product of labour.17 Imposition of a minimum wage would
remove this kind of exploitation. Nevertheless, as it probably would in-
crease production costs, it could, as in the previous case, induce factor sub-
stitution and a decrease in the level of employment. Should imperfections
be due to differentiation among workers, exploitation would only be elimi-
nated if each worker received a wage proportional to his or her respective
efficiency.
The best way to explain Joan Robinson’s argument is to trail a summa-
rized version of her example. Should the commodity be sold in an imperfect
market with free entry and a perfectly elastic supply of labour, there would
be exploitation because — according to her own definition — although the
wage would equal the marginal product, it would be less than the marginal
physical product valued by the price by which the commodity was sold (for
the demand for the commodity is not perfectly elastic due to the imperfec-
tion of the commodity market). In this case, if the market became perfect
exploitation would disappear, but this would not necessarily be beneficial to
workers.
Joan Robinson assumed that if the market became perfect, firms that
produced with less-than-optimum plants would begin to produce with op-
timum size plants, that is, they would grow. It should be expected that with
larger firms the average physical product (total physical product divided
per man employed) would increase. Nevertheless, when firms increase
in size owing to an increased demand, the prices of the other factors of

production may change (including wages). A change in the price of factors
might occur in various ways: some could increase and some could decrease,
depending on their supply elasticity. At the same time, a larger size of the
firms could lead to an increased output that might in turn lead to decreased
average costs.
On the other hand, a larger supply of commodities could lead to de-
creased prices, depending on the elasticity of the demand curve for that com-
modity. Furthermore, the larger size of the firms could lead to an increased
degree of mechanization, that is, to factor substitution, if technical condi-
tions made it possible and economic conditions (change in relative prices)
made it worthwhile. Through the consideration of all these effects, Joan
Robinson came to the conclusion that removing market imperfections
would not necessarily be to the workers’ convenience. In her own words:
It may appear strange that the removal of exploitation should ever be

disadvantageous to labour. But the explanation can be found in two facts.
First, when the demand for the commodity is inelastic anything that raises
the cost of the commodity increases the total receipts of the industry. Con-
sequently an increase in physical output per head can be of no advantage to
labour when the demand for the commodity is inelastic, and labour may
gain, at the expense of consumers, from the fact that the firms are less than
optimum size. Second, when the market is imperfect it may not be profit-
able for the individual firm to undertake a degree of mechanization which
becomes profitable when the market becomes perfect. Thus labour may
gain, at the expense of capital, from the fact that the firms are less than op-
timum size.
In every case, whether the imperfection of the market is of benefit to la-
bour or not, it must cause the price of the commodity to be higher than it
would be if there were perfect competition. Therefore, in so far as labour
gains from the imperfection of the market at the expense of the consumer it
is only a sectional advantage. There is a loss to the consumer of the com-
modity (who must pay a higher price) and to the community in general
(since less real wealth is being produced). It does not follow that because
the labour attached to the industry gains by the imperfection of the market
it is therefore not desirable to remove it. Moreover, if all industries were in
this case, labour would not gain from the existence of imperfection, since
their loss as consumers would more than offset their gain as wage earners.
But even when exploitation is universal, so that firms in all industries are
of less than optimum size, it is possible that if firms of less than optimum
size tend to employ less capital per man than optimum firms, the imperfec-
tion of the market may benefit labour at the expense of capital. If all markets
became perfect capital would tend to gain at the expense of labour, and it is
possible, though not likely, that labour would lose, on balance, by the re-
moval of exploitation. (Robinson, 1933a, p. 287-288)
The eventual outcome of the removal of imperfections, although favour-

able to workers at first sight, could in fact not be so: workers would benefit
as wage earners, but would lose as consumers. They would benefit as relates
to capital in terms of the wage/profit ratio but would lose in terms of the
level of employment.
4. COMMENTATORS’ REMARKS
Joan Robinson’s book received a large number of reviews, some of which

were shared with Edward Chamberlin. They expressed a great variety of
opinions, some critical and others flattering, but only few of them stressed or
even referred to the subject of this paper.18 Nevertheless, it is possible to
identify some authors who perceived the importance of the labour market in
Joan Robinson’s view as an imperfect market par excellence. A special men-
tion must be made to Corwin Edwards, who, besides referring to the fact that
“buyer’s monopoly, or monopsony is discussed with especial reference to
the demand for factors of production, and culminates in a theory of the ex-
ploitation of labour by virtue of the imperfection of the market” (Edwards,
1933, p. 684), compared Joan Robinson’s book with Chamberlin’s and came
to the conclusion that “both authors agree that the general effect of partial
monopoly is to restrict output and to raise prices. Professor Chamberlin
adds that it increases the number of enterprises and promotes excessive dif-
ferentiation of products. Mrs. Robinson adds that it facilitates exploitation
of labour” (Edwards, 1933, p. 684).19
Nicholas Kaldor’s review published in Economica in 1934 is also impor-
tant. According to him, the most valuable results in The Economics of Imper-
fect Competition were to be found in Books VII, VIII and IX,20 in which she
“derive[d] the monopolist’s demand curve for a factor of production and
thereby [could] solve the general problem of distribution under a regime of

monopolies” (Kaldor, 1934, p. 337).21
In his review of the book, Gerald Shove referred to her approach and
method and judged that “for a product of youth it is surprisingly — to a
rebel veteran, disappointingly — conservative” (Shove, 1933, p. 657).22
Arthur Radford’s review was the only one almost totally dedicated to the
discussion of the concept of exploitation, which, as much as that of entre-
preneurship, he thought “may have to be eliminated in future” (Radfdord,
1934, p. 20). According to him exploitation is a moral conception, “a trans-
gression of the moral code comparable to theft, which is a transgression of
the legal code” (Radfdord, 1934, p. 20). It is “action which goes beyond the
moral code but keeps within the legal code” (Radford, 1934, p. 21), and as
such the concept denotes that Joan Robinson was still attached to a system
of thought which was previous to and not consistent with the ideas she ex-
pounded in her book.
Roy Harrod reviewed Chamberlin’s Theory of Monopolistic Competi-
tion23 and, as far as we know, did not review Joan Robinson’s book. But he
wrote an interesting paper entitled “Doctrines of Imperfect Competition”
(Harrod, 1934), where he presented a magnificent summary of these
doctrines and particularly of the concept of exploitation. Similarly to Joan
Robinson’s reasoning, he came to the conclusion that the conditions of
perfect competition were not to be restored because those conditions have
never existed nor can exist. While he thought it was necessary to become
more sceptical of the benefits of a free economy, he also believed it was nec-
essary to be careful in suggesting policies to the public authority, for some
could be difficult to define and others might not turn out to be satisfactory.
Edward Chamberlin’s criticisms were probably the harshest,24 but they
are not going to be fully discussed here because his divergences from Joan
Robinson were much wider than those related to the concept of exploita-
tion. His stance can be summarized as follows: monopolistic competition
explores all factors (not only labour), in the sense that they are all paid less
than the market equivalent value of their marginal physical products.25
More recently, there appeared a quite large quantity of books and papers
— of different theoretical approaches — that re-evaluate Joan Robinson’s
contribution to economic theory.26 Some of them discuss The Economics of
Imperfect Competition, but again only a few recognise the importance of the
labour market (or of exploitation). Again, there are some exceptions, such
as Feiwel (1989c), Rima (1991b) and Turner (1989).27
George Feiwel notes that Joan Robinson’s discussion of labour exploita-
tion is “imaginative and controversial ” (Feiwel, 1989c, p. 17), but that it
“has not lost its relevance in the more than fifty years since it was written”
(Feiwel, 1989c, p. 17). He states that when analysing the individual buyer
and seller, Joan Robinson chose labour as the factor of production simply
“for the sake of convenience” (Feiwel, 1989c, p. 16), but he also acknowl-
edges that in the last part of her book, which deals with exploitation (the
most original and important part in his opinion), “labour no longer stands
for any factor of production but only for its own category” (Feiwel, 1989c,
p. 17). Feiwel stresses that Joan Robinson “does not shy away even from un-
palatable conclusions” (Feiwel, 1989c, p. 17), such as, that to increase wages
by reducing profits to the normal level could be an undesirable strategy be-
cause it could lead to price increases and less employment. Feiwel calls
attention to the fact that the book was “a product of the general dissatisfac-
tion with laissez-faire policy during the slump, and was particularly mean-
ingful in the context of the economic situation when the book appeared”
(Feiwel, 1989c, p. 22). He also particularly stresses one of Joan Robinson’s
main conclusion: “A system of uncontrolled private enterprises in which
wages are more plastic than profits must entail the misdirection of re-
sources and the waste of potential wealth on an extensive scale” (Robinson,
1933a, p. 291).
Ingrid Rima identifies “Robinson’s non-traditional view of the role of
labour markets” (Rima, 1991b, p. 197) by alluding to the competition
between different groups of workers to maintain their relative position as
determinants of the movements of money-wage rates. She also mentions
that Joan Robinson tried to dissociate herself from the conventional distri-
bution theory, even before the General Theory, moved by her uneasiness
with the orthodox wage theory which “had stuck in [her] gizzard as a stu-
dent” (Robinson, 1977b, p. x).
Last but not least, Marjorie Turner’s account must also be mentioned.
According to her, “one of [Joan Robinson’s] most significant conclusions
was that the existence of imperfect competition provided a means of ‘mo-
nopolistic exploitation of labour’” (Turner, 1989, p. 30) which also had im-
portant welfare consequences. What is more important, Turner relates the
appearance of this theory to depression of the 1930’s.
In fact, when examining recent papers that evaluate The Economics of
Imperfect Competition in the light of the new theory of employment which
was being forged at that same time, one notes that in their great majority
these papers emphasise historical aspects of the writing of that book, but
demote the author’s analytical contributions to a second level. An example
of an interesting historical account is Cristina Marcuzzo’s introduction to
the collection of Joan Robinson’s papers published in Italian. Marcuzzo re-
fers to the main industrial sectors of the British economy, “which had al-
ready entered into that irreversible phase of decline and losses that had
already begun to show itself in the form of increasing unemployment
and sub-utilization of resources” (Marcuzzo, 1991, p. xxiv),28 that is, to the
fact that when “the moment arrived for Joan Robinson to learn Economics,
soon after the end of the first war, the features of the economic system
which that [Marshallian] theory was supposed to explain and to describe
were already profoundly changed” (Marcuzzo, 1991, p. xxiv).29
It is noteworthy above all that Marcuzzo relates Joan Robinson’s book to
Richard Kahn’s thesis.30 Kahn analysed the behaviour of the firms in the
cotton and coal industries and showed that, contrary to what the assump-
tion of perfect competition stated, all firms and not only the less efficient
ones worked with idle capacity (less than the maximum or potential pro-
ductive capacity). Kahn’s conclusion was that under the assumption of im-
perfect competition, the most rational (and observed) behaviour of firms
in the short run was to react to a decrease of demand by reducing output
instead of reducing prices, and that they did it not so much for “fear of
spoiling the market” but rather because by reducing output they could
minimise losses. Although Kahn’s thesis was circumscribed to partial analy-
sis, the consequences of his conclusions about the reduction of output upon
the sub-utilization of the factor “labour” seem to be evident. As he had an
important role in the development of The Economics of Imperfect Competi-
tion, this reinforces the argument of the present paper: slump conditions
were responsible for unemployment, not imperfect competition nor high
wage rates.31
5. FINAL REMARKS
Joan Robinson intended to compare wages in perfect competition with

wages in monopoly. To do that she suggested a broader definition of ex-
ploitation, which is the subject of the second item of this paper. Using the
broader definition which “was due not to classes but to market structures”
(Turner, 1989, p. 31) she showed that the removal of exploitation could
change the marginal physical product of labour and/or the price of the
commodity and that therefore it would not always be beneficial to workers.
Her argument helped her demonstrate an element of advantage (from the
point of view of the workers) in the imperfection of the markets.
The level of employment was analysed through a series of situations.
Having in mind that the form of the demand curve of labour depends on
who is the demanding agent (whether a monopoly or a set of organized
or unorganized firms), Joan Robinson considered several different cases.
Firms could compete in the commodity market and have agreements as to
the labour market. The commodity market itself could be perfect or imper-
fect, and those situations would rebound on the demand curve for the com-
modity from the point of view of each firm. Firms, in turn, could compete
in other factor markets (and their supply could have different elasticities).
Firms would or would not take into account that a larger output could
change the commodity’s price, and this might or might not have conse-
quences on the other factor prices (labour included), depending on supply
elasticity. Finally, Joan Robinson took into account various causes of inelas-
ticity in the supply of labour (such as ignorance of better opportunities, in-
ertia, high mobility costs, efficiency differences among individual workers
or groups of workers, fidelity to previous job, etc.). All that led her to the
conclusion that imperfect markets could employ more workers than perfect
markets, and therefore unemployment had nothing to do with imperfec-
tions of competition.
None of the above remarks seemed to have received much attention.
Even Joan Robinson stated that her fundamental mistake in The Economics
of Imperfect Competition had been the utilization of a priori Marshallian as-
sumptions “as interpreted by Pigou” (Robinson, 1977b, p. x) and the intro-
duction of “some scraps of observation” (Robinson, 1977b, p. x) in those
assumptions, “instead of making a radical critique of the relationship be-

tween the traditional assumptions and the actual economy that they pre-
tended to describe” (Robinson, 1979a, p. 114). All the same, Joan Robinson
considered that the work had not been completely wasted because it “pro-
duced a complete restatement of the Pigouvian system with various amend-
ments, in particular the demonstration that, in Pigou’s own terms, it is not
true that wages are equal to the value of the marginal product of labour”
(Robinson, 1977b, p. x), and also because “over the bridge of Kalecki’s
‘degree of monopoly’ it led on to the modern theory of the determination
of profit margins and so was linked up with the theory of employment”
(Robinson, 1979a, p. 114). These are the main reasons for Joan Robinson to
have come to the conclusion that her work was in fact much different from
Chamberlin’s book:
My twin, Professor Chamberlin, spent many years protesting that his “mo-
nopolistic competition” was quite different from my “Imperfect Competi-
tion”. (It used to be said at Harvard at one time that any student could be
sure of getting a good degree by abusing Mrs. Robinson.) This was partly,
I think, due to human weakness. We had to share reviews and footnotes that
Chamberlin would rather have had to himself. (The fact that I was quite
bored with the subject annoyed him all the more.) But there was a deeper
reason. I was delighted to find that I had proved (within the accepted assump-
tions) that it is not true to say that wages equal the marginal productivity of
labour, while Chamberlin wanted to maintain that advertisement, salesman-
ship and monopolistic product differentiation in no way impaired the principle
of consumer’s sovereignty and the beneficial effect of the free play of market
forces. (Robinson, 1979a, p. 114, italics added)32
Joan Robinson realized the importance of her having proved that labour
exploitation could and did occur quite frequently because it consisted of the
“general case”. She had already clearly expressed this conclusion at least ten
years earlier in her preface to the second edition of The Economics of Imper-
fect Competition, where she stated that this should be considered her most
important and permanently valid contribution: “what for me was the main
point, I succeeded in proving within the framework of the orthodox theory,
that it is not true that wages are normally equal to the value of the marginal
product of labour (...). Let us hope that a new generation of students, after
forty years, will find in this book what I intended to mean by it” (Robinson,
1933/1969, p. xii).
She used to repeat this conclusion whenever she had the opportunity,
even before that second edition of the book. In a paper called “‘Imper-
fect Competition’ Today” for instance, she re-affirmed that under im-
perfect competition wages were less than the value of the marginal product
of labour, and that although trade unions were “necessary to reduce the im-
perfection of the market” (Robinson, 1958a, p. 243), it could be that due to
technical progress and to raises in productivity “the workers [would] do
best by accepting a given share in a growing total than they could do by se-
curing a larger share in a total which, for that very reason, would be growing
less fast” (Robinson, 1958a, p. 243).
The latter assessment synthesizes the argument developed in this paper.
In The Economics of Imperfect Competition Joan Robinson proved that un-
employment was not due to market imperfections (as argued above, in dif-
ferent conditions imperfect markets are able to employ more than, less than
or the same number of workers as perfect competition), but that imperfec-
tions are responsible for labour exploitation. From the point of view of the
working class, it might be better to be exploited and remain employed than
not to be exploited and risk staying unemployed. On the one hand, the re-
duction/elimination of market imperfections could reduce/eliminate ex-
ploitation. On the other hand, there were no guarantees that it would lead
to a higher level of employment.
Nevertheless, by assuming that imperfect competition was related to the
firms’ capacity to raise prices and that it could lead to lower real wage rates,
Joan Robinson thought that trade unions had an important role to play in
pressing for higher money-wage rates, so that demand could increase at a
level compatible with productivity increase. This would avoid a growth of
profit margins and help “keep the share of wages more or less constant and
to prevent the oligopolists from frustrating themselves” (Robinson, 1958a,
p. 243-244). Trade unions should prevent reduction of purchasing power.
In other words, she stressed that trade unions were “indispensable to the
proper functioning of the system” (Robinson, 1958a, p. 243) because in im-
perfect markets price competition tended to cease, and if wage rates were to
remain constant and technical progress were to decrease the costs of pro-
duction, profit margins (and share) would increase and wage share would
decrease. Given wage earners’ higher propensity to consume, a crisis could
ensue. This was, according to Joan Robinson, an important feature of the
imperfect competition theory as she remarked in “Full Employment and
Inflation”: “trade union pressure which counters monopolistic tendencies
and keeps profit margins in check is necessary in order to make it possible
for profits to be realised” (Robinson, 1958b, p. 278).33
It is necessary to acknowledge that these were later assessments, ex-post
conclusions. But, at the same time, they testify that Joan Robinson’s con-
cern with employment had only begun with The Economics of Imperfect
Competition. From then onwards, she developed many of the ideas she had
already presented in this first major book,34 incorporating several and im-
portant contributions of many other contemporaries, mainly Keynes and
Kalecki. But this would be a subject for another paper.35
Finally, Joan Robinson’s comment to George Shackle’s remark must be
mentioned as a reply to interpretations that consider The Economics of Im-
perfect Competition a purely theoretic book. She emphasized that the 1930’s
were a period in which unemployment needed an explanation. The new
theory “was an attempt to bring analysis to bear on actual problems”
(Robinson, 1977a, p. 1). It “consisted of advancing alternative hypotheses to
replace those, derived from the theory of supply and demand for labour,
which had been too much discredited in the slump” (Robinson, 1977a, p. 3).
ABSTRACT
In The Economics of Imperfect Competition Joan Robinson proved that un-

employment was not due to market imperfections, because under different
conditions imperfect markets are able to employ more than, less than or the
same number of workers as perfect competition. Nevertheless, imperfec-
tions are responsible for labour exploitation. She also argued that from the
point of view of the working class, it could be better to be exploited and re-
main employed than not to be exploited and risk staying unemployed. If, on
the one hand, the reduction or elimination of market imperfections could
reduce or eliminate exploitation, on the other hand, there were no guaran-
tees that it would lead to a higher level of employment. These conclusions
do not mean that there was no role to be played by trade unions. By assum-
ing that imperfect competition was related to the firms’ capacity to raise
prices and that it could lead to lower real wage rates, Joan Robinson thought
that trade unions should press for higher wage rates so that demand could
increase at a level compatible with productivity increase. This paper argues
that Joan Robinson’s book can be read in the light of Keynes’ principle of
effective demand.
RESUMO
Em A economia da concorrência imperfeita, Joan Robinson prova que o de-

semprego não decorre das imperfeições de mercado, uma vez que em dife-
rentes condições mercados imperfeitos são capazes de gerar um nível de
emprego maior, menor ou igual ao gerado em mercados perfeitos. No en-
tanto, as imperfeições são responsáveis pela exploração da mão-de-obra.
Joan Robinson também argumenta que, do ponto de vista da classe traba-
lhadora, pode ser preferível ser explorado e estar empregado do que não ser
explorado e arriscar o desemprego. Se, por um lado, a redução ou a elimina-
ção das imperfeições de mercado podem reduzir ou eliminar a exploração,
por outro, não há garantia de que leve a um nível maior de emprego. Estas
conclusões não significam que os sindicatos não tenham nenhum papel a
desempenhar. Ao supor que as imperfeições se relacionam com a capaci-
dade das firmas de elevar os preços, e que isso pode levar à redução das ta-
xas salariais, Joan Robinson achava que os sindicatos devem pressionar pe-
la elevação dos salários, de modo que a demanda possa crescer num nível
compatível com o aumento da produtividade. O trabalho argumenta que o
livro de Joan Robinson pode ser lido à luz do princípio da demanda efetiva
de John Maynard Keynes.
NOTES
1. A previous version of this paper (entitled “Labour Market and Employment in Joan
Robinson’s The Economics of Imperfect Competition”) was presented in Portuguese at
the XXV Encontro Nacional de Economia (ANPEC) in Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, in
December 1997. The present version was presented at the Second Annual Conference
of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought (ESHET), in Bologna,
Italy, in February/March 1998. Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
(FAPESP) is gratefully acknowledged for the financial support granted for the author to
attend the Conference in Bologna.
2. See Schumpeter (1934). For a critical analysis of Schumpeter’s review see Vecchi (1996).
3. The term “box of tools” became popular after Joan Robinson. Nevertheless, some au-
thors notice that it was created by A. C. Pigou. See Birmingham Post (1933) and
Harcourt (1990).
4. See Sraffa (1926).
5. For instance, Hicks in Value and Capital (1939).
6. Galbraith (1948) and Tobin (1989) make short remarks on this issue, but there are some
works directly dedicated to the subject. Even without explaining their different views
and approaches, it is worthwhile to mention Sawyer (1992a, 1992b e 1992c), Dutt
(1992), Marcuzzo (1994), Marris (1997) and Shapiro (1997). In their introduction to
A ‘Second Edition’ of The General Theory, Harcourt and Riach mention Jan Kregel’s
point of view that the principle of effective demand must not be confused with particu-
lar assumptions on the conditions of industry and with Paul Davidson’s assessment that
what Keynes wanted to show was that unemployment equilibrium could occur with or
without perfect competition.
7. Heller (1996) notices that Keynes apparently did not recognize the relation between im-
perfect competition and idle productive capacity (and between these and technical
progress) nor their impact on the level of employment. It is also suggested that Joan
Robinson clearly connected their mutual relationship. Joan Robinson remembered in a
later statement that “[Keynes] launched [her] career by getting Macmillan’s to publish
Economics of Imperfect Competition but he thought the subject quite unimportant...”
(Robinson, 1979b, p. 119). As far as she could recollect, Keynes “took no interest what-
ever in ‘marginal revenue’ and all that” (Robinson, 1979b, p. 119). King’s College Mod-
ern Archive Centre has some documents (such as a typescript version of the introduc-
tion to the book in which it is possible to read Keynes’s hand-written notes as well as
Keynes’s interesting reply to Macmillan’s letter on the convenience of publishing Joan
Robinson’s book), which show that Keynes was not as indifferent to The Economics of
Imperfect Competition as she supposed he was.
8. See some of her memories of that period in Robinson (1977b). Joan Robinson even
wrote some articles — before publishing her book — that are still nowadays considered
“classical” in the defence of the ideas which developed into The General Theory. See par-
ticularly Robinson (1933b) and Robinson (1933c).
9. This is one of the central ideas sustained in Heller (1996).
10. In Robinson (1934) she established another definition of perfect competition in which
it was sufficient to suppose a perfectly elastic demand curve for the single firm. Her aim
in that paper was to show that every other supposition, such as free entry to the indus-
try, free mobility of factors, product homogeneity and/or perfect foresight, could be re-
laxed and yet remain compatible with perfect competition (subject, of course, to the
condition that these presumptions would not change the perfect elasticity of the de-
mand curve of the single firm).
11. This is also one of the ideas in which she embedded the general character of the tools
based on marginal curves. See particularly Robinson (1933a, p. 229-231).
12. Joan Robinson’s view of the theory of exploitation that derived from the labour theory
of value is to be found in several of her papers but mainly in An Essay on Marxian Eco-
nomics (1942). She recalled reading Marx for the first time in 1940 “as a distraction from
the news” (Robinson, 1973, p. x).
13. It is possible to define it mathematically:
(1) P = h(Q) inverted demand function in which P stands for price and Q for quantity
produced
(2) total receipt TR = P.Q = Q.h(Q)
(3) marginal revenue MR = h(Q) + Q.h’(Q)
(4) Q = f(L) production function for one single variable input, in which L stands for
labour (the single variable input)
(5) RMP: receipt of the marginal product (change in the total receipt due to input varia-
tion).
RMP = dTR/dL = d[Q.h(Q)]/dL = h(Q).dQ/dL + Q.h’(Q).dQ/dL
(6) from (4) it is possible to deduce the marginal product MP = dQ/dL = f’(L)
(7) substituting (6) in (5) we have RMP = [h(Q) + Q.h’(Q)]f’(L)
(8) from (3) and (6) it is possible to obtain RMP = MR.MP
14. To be rigorous, Joan Robinson distinguished average and marginal gross productivity
from average and marginal net productivity by subtracting from gross values the cost of
every other factor of production (per man employed) to reach net values. It is not neces-
sary to use these more precise definitions because they do not alter the main statement
of this paper.
15. She also considered exploitation due to discriminatory power of the employer, but this
case can be seen as equivalent to the second one because it supposes some kind of differ-
entiation among workers, and therefore imperfections in the labour market. She also
identified another situation — quasi-exploitation — caused by entry barriers to the in-
dustry. This situation did not correspond, as Joan Robinson herself admitted, to her
own definition.
16. Chapter 8 of The Economics of Imperfect Competition discusses various possible causes of
imperfections in the labour market. (That chapter is particularly interesting in that it
seems closely inspired by Sraffa (1926)). Imperfections in the market labour are respon-
sible for imperfect elasticity of the supply curve of labour, that is, for an increasing sup-
ply curve.
17. This proposition can be mathematically proved:
(9) W = g(L) inverted supply function in which W stands for the input price (wage)
and L stands for the quantity of input supplied (labour).
(10) variable cost C(L) = W.L = L.g(L)
(11) marginal expenditure with the input
ME = dC(L)/dL = g(L) + Lg’(L) = W + L.dW/dL
(12) elasticity of the supply of input θ = dL.W/dW.L
(13) from (11) it is possible to deduce ME = W + L.dW/dL = W(1+L.dW/W.dL)
(14) substituting (12) in (13) we have ME = W(1+1/θ)
If the supply curve of input is perfectly elastic, θ tends to ∞ and ME = W.
18. The complete list of reviews of The Economics of Imperfect Competition — as far as it is
known — can be found in the References at the end of this paper.
19. It has been stated above that in Joan Robinson’s book monopoly does not always restrict
output nor raise prices. That is an important conclusion to the present paper, but it is
not possible to reply to Edwards here.
20. Respectively: Demand for a Factor of Production; Comparison between the Demand
for Labour in Monopoly and in Competition; and Exploitation
21. This is how he summarized her results: “She (...) shows that (...) hired factors of produc-
tion will tend to receive their ‘marginal value products’, i.e. the net increase in the value
of output created by the addition of a single unit of a factor which is always less (except
under perfect competition) than the value of their own net product. The tendency (...)
towards an equality in the level of remuneration of the same sources (...) will not be nec-
essarily realised if competition is not perfect — even if there is no ‘institutional
monopoly’ in the sense that any of the required resources are under a single control”
(Kaldor, 1934, p. 337). But he also had some criticisms: he found it very difficult to dis-
tinguish monopsonistic from monopolistic exploitation and thereby considered that it
would be misleading to base trade union policies upon that distinction. He also found
Joan Robinson’s exposition in this part of the book unnecessarily complicated.
22. For Shove, Joan Robinson’s originality was to be found in the book’s details, and an
“honourable mention should be made of the full analysis of the tendency to ‘exploita-
tion’ ... which, though a little meticulous, brings out several important points and in-
cludes ... a very pretty application to the problem of men’s and women’s wages” (Shove,
1933, p. 659).
23. See Harrod (1933).
24. Nichol’s review is also very severe. In his opinion, the title of the book “is an expression
of purpose rather than a description of content” (Nichol, 1934, p. 257), and his main
disagreement refers to the geometrical tools used by Joan Robinson, which he finds to
be inferior to mathematics.
25. It seems that Chamberlin is not completely wrong in his reasoning. But here we dare
to state that Joan Robinson never did affirm that labour was the only exploited factor
of production. Her emphasis in the labour market was due to her commitment to
the problem of unemployment. Chamberlin also criticised Joan Robinson because
she did not include the entrepreneur among the factors of production (according to
him this was due to her having erroneously identified the entrepreneur with the firm).
In Chamberlin’s view this is why the entrepreneur was always considered the ex-
ploiter and labour the exploited. On Chamberlin’s contention on Joan Robinson’s defi-
nition and use of the concept of exploitation see Chamberlin (1933, p. 181-184 and
215-218), eighth edition. For a short comparison between Joan Robinson and Edward
Chamberlin on this theme (favouring Chamberlin’s reasoning) see Asimakopulos
(1990, p. 113-114).
26. See, for instance, Marjorie Turner’s Joan Robinson and the Americans (1989); the two
volumes edited by George Feiwel (both published in 1989) Joan Robinson and Modern
Economic Theory and The Economics of Imperfect Competition and Employment — Joan
Robinson and Beyond; the book edited by Ingrid Rima The Joan Robinson Legacy (1991);
and James Cicarelli and Julianne Cicarelli’s Joan Robinson: A Bio-Bibliography (1996).
Another important reference is the selection of papers presented at the Conference
“The Passion of Reason: Joan Robinson (1903-1983)” that took place in Turin, Italy,
in December 1993, edited by Maria Cristina Marcuzzo, Luigi L. Pasinetti e Alessandro
Roncaglia, The Economics of Joan Robinson (1996). Special editions in honour of Joan
Robinson are volume 7 of the Cambridge Journal of Economics (1983) and volume 37 of
Economie Appliquée (1985). See Heller (1996) for a rather complete list of works on Joan
Robinson including some unpublished papers and academic theses.
27. See also Bishop (1989).
28. My translation into English from Italian.
29. My translation into English from Italian. See also O’Brien (1984, p. 29): “[Joan
Robinson’s book] sought to explain the prevalence of universal excess capacity working
as the necessary result of a world of monopoly, to show that ‘exploitation’ was also nec-
essarily involved in this world, and to demonstrate, consequently, that the rationaliza-
tion scheme of the 1930s was harmful”. Other papers on Joan Robinson’s The Eco-
nomics of Imperfect Competition that are worth citing are Loasby (1985) and Whitaker
(1989).
30. See Kahn (1929, 1989).
31. Heller (1998) discusses the influence of Kahn’s thesis on the elaboration of the theory of
imperfect competition and his claim of having been the first to conceive the kinked de-
mand curve (generally but not universally attributed to Hall and Hitch and/or Sweezy).
32. And in the sequence: “The one-sided controversy of Chamberlin against Robinson was
a bad case of confronting the conclusions of two arguments without examining their as-
sumptions. Where he and I set up the same questions (errors and omissions excepted)
we found the same answers and where the questions were different, the answers were
too. In some respects, Chamberlin’s assumptions were more realistic than mine, though
he did not want to draw realistic conclusions for them” (Robinson, 1979a, p. 114).
33. Another important element (though less recognised by anyone, including herself) is the
idea that while under imperfect conditions price competition tends do cease, other
forms of competition such as technical improvements or even advertisements can open
new opportunities of investment and therefore create new jobs and new opportunities
of employment.
34. Nevertheless, she never really took a serious approach to the economics of trade unions.
35. Under the influence of Kalecki (mainly), Joan Robinson’s arguments became more
sophisticated. She showed that the high profit margins related to imperfections in
the commodities markets might decrease the purchasing power of real wages and there-
fore reduce employment or even decrease the degree of capacity utilization. Therefore,
profits might decrease. Consequently, high profit margins might not create high prof-
its. On the other hand, the lower profit margins associated to more competitive price
policies might not reduce profits, but do the very opposite. As they increase real wages,
they make it possible to increase demand and the level of employment as well as the
degree of capacity utilization. According to Asimakopulos (1988-1989, p. 274), Joan
Robinson’s references to “Keynesian models” should be more appropriately described
as “Kaleckian”, particularly when referred to the “explicit integration of micro and
macro elements [that] became a feature of Robinson’s work”. In fact, the above reason-
ing was based on the assumption of a higher propensity to consume out of wages —
a clearly Kaleckian inspiration.
REFERENCES
ASIMAKOPULOS, Athanasios (1988-1989) Kalecki and Joan Robinson: An Outsider’s Influ-

ence. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 11(2), p. 261-278.
———. (1990) Joan Robinson and the Americans. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics,
13(1), p. 111-124.
BATSON, Harold E. (1933) Mr. Kitchin on the Insignificance of Economics – Joint Review of
Lionel Robbins’ ‘Nature and Significance of Economic Science’, Donald Kitchin’s ‘Will
Economics follow the Robbins Road?’ and Joan Robinson’s ‘Economics of Imperfect
Competition’. Scrutinity, September, p. 175-181.
BIRMINGHAM POST (1933) Unemployment and the Economists: review of Joan Robinson’s
‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’ and of A. C. Pigou’s ‘The Theory of Unemploy-
ment’, September 5, p. 4.
BISHOP, Robert L. (1989) Imperfect Competition After Fifty Years. In: Feiwel (ed.) (1989b).
The Economics of Imperfect Competition and Employment – Joan Robinson and Beyond,
p. 197-211.
CAMBRIDGE JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS (1983) Special Issue in Honour of Joan Robinson,
7(3/4), September/December.
CHAMBERLIN, Edward Hastings (1933) The Theory of Monopolistic Competition – A Re-
orientation of the Theory of Value. 8. ed. Harvard University Press, 1962.
CICARELLI, James, CICARELLI, Julianne (1996) Joan Robinson: A Bio-Bibliography.
Westport, Connecticut : Greenwood Press.
CLARE MARKET REVIEW (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’, Michael-
mas Term.
CLARK, Colin (1933) Competition: review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. The
Cambridge Review, November 10, p. 91-92.
DUTT, Amitava (1992) Keynes, Market Forms and Competition. In: Gerrard and Hillard
(1992). The Philosophy and Economics of J. M. Keynes. Aldershot : Edward Elgar,
p. 129-148.
ECONOMIE APPLIQUÉE (1985) Special Issue in Honour of Joan Robinson, 37(2), Septem-
ber/December.
ECONOMIST MONTHLY BOOK SUPPLEMENT (THE) (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Im-
perfect Competition’, September 9, p. 2-3.
EDWARDS, Corwin D. (1933) Review of Edward Chamberlin, ‘The Theory of Monopolistic

Competition’ and of Joan Robinson, ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competition’. The
American Economic Review, (23), December, p. 683-685.
FEIWEL, George R. (ed.) (1989a) Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory. Londres :
Macmillan.
———. (ed.) (1989b) The Economics of Imperfect Competition and Employment – Joan
Robinson and Beyond. Londres : Macmillan.
———. (1989c) Joan Robinson Inside and Outside the Stream. In: ———. (ed.) (1989a)
Joan Robinson and Modern Economic Theory, p. 1-120.
FINANCIAL NEWS (1933a) Notice of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’, June 17.
———. (1933b) Making Economics Useful – adjusting theory to prices, July 5.
FRAIN, H. LaRue (1934) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Annals of the
American Academy, v. 176, November, p. 224-225.
GALBRAITH, John Kenneth (1948) Monopoly and the Concentration of Economic Power. In:
Ellis (ed.) (1949). A Survey of Contemporary Economics, Richard D. Irwin, v. I, p. 99-128.
H.T. (1934) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Public Administration,
January, p. 102.
HALL, R. J., HITCH, C. J. (1939) Price Theory and Business Behavior. Oxford Economic
Papers, (OS), (2), May, p. 12-46
HARCOURT, Geoffrey Colin (1990) Joan Robinson’s Early Views on Method. History of
Political Economy, 22(3), p. 411-427.
———, RIACH, R. A. (1997) A ‘Second Edition’ of the General Theory, Routledge (2 v.).
HARROD, Roy Forbes (1933) Review of Edward Chamberlin, ‘The Theory of Monopolistic
Competition’. The Economic Journal, 43(172), December, p. 661-666.
———. (1934) Doctrines of Imperfect Competition. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 48(2),
May, p. 442-470.
HELLER, Claudia (1996) Oligopólio e progresso técnico no pensamento de Joan Robinson. Ph.D.
Thesis, Instituto de Economia, Unicamp (forthcoming by Hucitec, São Paulo).
———. (1998) “A economia do curto prazo de Richard Kahn e os primórdios da teoria do
oligopólio: uma contribuição à história do pensamento econômico contemporâneo”.
Revista de Economia Política, abr.-jun. 1998 (forthcoming).
HICKS, John Richard (1939) Value and Capital – An Inquiry into Some Fundamental Prin-
ciples of Economic Theory. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
HOLLOND, Marjorie Tappan (n.d.) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’.
Girton Review, p. 28-29.
J. E. H. (1934) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Management Review,
February.
KAHN, Richard Ferdinand (1929-1989) The Economics of the Short Period, Fellowship Disser-
tation, King’s College, Cambridge. 1. ed., 1989. Londres : Macmillan.
KALDOR, Nicholas (1934) Mrs. Robinson’s ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Econo-

mica, (1), August, p. 335-341.
KREGEL, Jan Allen (1973) The Reconstruction of Political Economy – An Introduction to Post-
Keynesian Economics. Nova York : Macmillan/John Willey.
LERNER, Abba Ptachya (1936a) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Interna-
tional Labour Review, October.
LIVERPOOL POST AND MERCURY (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’,
September 7.
LOASBY, Brian J. (1985) Joan Robinson’s Wrong Turning. Eastern Economic Journal.
Reproduced in Loasby (1989). The Mind and the Method of the Economist – A Critical
Appraisal of Major Economists in the 20th Century, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.,
Aldershot, p. 71-85.
MADRAS MAIL (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’, July 18.
MANCHESTER GUARDIAN COMMERCIAL (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Com-
petition’, Manchester, August 26.
MARCUZZO, Maria Cristina (ed.) (1991) Joan Robinson: Occupazione, Distribuzione e
Crescita, Il Mulino, Bologna.
———. (1994) Kahn and Imperfect Competition. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18(1),
February, p. 25-39.
———, PASINETTI, Luigi, RONCAGLIA, Alessandro (eds.) (1996) The Economics of Joan
Robinson. Londres : Routledge.
MARRIS, Robin (1997) Yes, Mrs. Robinson! The General Theory and imperfect competition.
In: G. C. Harcourt and R. A. Riach (1997). A ‘Second Edition’ of the General Theory,
Routledge, v. I, p. 52-82.
NICHOL, A. J. (1934) Review of ‘Theory of Imperfect Competition’. Journal of Political
Economy, (42), November, p. 257-259.
O’BRIAN, George (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Studies, Septem-
ber 4, p. 519-520.
———. (1984) Research programmes in competitive structures. Journal of Economic Studies,
(10), p. 29-51.
POLGLAZE, J. (1934) Review of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competition’. The Economic
Record, (10), June, p. 106-107.
R. G. H. (1934) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Journal of the Royal Statis-
tical Society, (97), p. 671-674.
R. L. H. (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. The Oxford Magazine, Ox-
ford, p. 415-416.
RADFORD, Arthur (1934) Review of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Tutor’s
Bulletin of Adult Education, May, p. 18-22.
RICCI, Umberto (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Giornali degli
Economisti, (48), November, p. 839-841.
RIMA, Ingrid H. (ed.) (1991a) The Joan Robinson Legacy. Nova York : M.E. Sharpe Inc.
———. (1991b) Robinson and ‘The Other Half’ of the Keynesian Revolution. In: Rima (ed.)
(1991a). The Joan Robinson Legacy . Nova York : M.E. Sharpe Inc., p. 195-208.
ROBINSON, J. (1933a) The Economics of Imperfect Competition. 2. ed. Londres : Macmillan,
1969.
———. (1933b) A Parable on Savings and Investments. Economica, OS, v. 13, February,
p. 75-84.
———. (1933c) The Theory of Money and the Analysis of Output. The Review of Economic
Studies, (1), October, p. 22-26.
———. (1934) What is Perfect Competition? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 48(4), Novem-
ber, p. 104-120.
———. (1942) An Essay on Marxian Economics. Londres : Macmillan.
———. (1958a) ‘Imperfect Competition’ Today. Collected Economic Papers, v. 2. Oxford,
Basil Blackwell, 1960. 2. ed., 1975, p. 239-245.
———. (1958b) Full Employment and Inflation. Collected Economic Papers, v. 2. Oxford,
Basil Blackwell, 1960. 2. ed., 1975, p. 271-279.
———. (1933, 1969) Preface to the Second Edition of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Compe-
tition’: Imperfect Competition Then and Now. In: ———. (1933a), The Economics of
Imperfect Competition. 2. ed. Londres : Macmillan, 1969, p. v-xii.
———. (1973) Foreword. In: Kregel (1973). The Reconstruction of Political Economy – An In-
troduction to Post-Keynesian Economics. Nova York : Macmillan/John Willey, p. ix-xiii.
———. (1977a) What are the Questions?. The Journal of Economic Literature, (15), Decem-
ber, p. 1318-1339. Reproduced in Collected Economic Papers, v. 5, Oxford, Basil
Blackwell, 1980, p. 1-31.
———. (1977b) Reminiscences. Contributions to Modern Economics, Basil Blackwell, Ox-
ford, 1978, p. ix-xxii.
———. (1979a) Thinking about Thinking. Collected Economic Papers, v. 5, Oxford, Basil
Blackwell, 1980, p. 110-119.
———. (1979b) Review of D. Patinkin and J. C. Leith (eds.), ‘Keynes, Cambridge and the
General Theory: The process of criticism and discussion connected with the development
of The General Theory’. Canadian Journal of Economics, 12(1), February, p. 118-120.
SAWYER, Malcolm C. (1992a) The Relationship Between Keynes’s Macroeconomic Analysis
and Theories of Imperfect Competition. In: Gerrard and Hillard (eds.) (1992). The Phi-
losophy and Economics of J.M. Keynes, Aldershot, Edward Elgar, p. 107-128.
———. (1992b) On the Relationship Between the Origins of Post-Keynesian Pricing Theory
and Macroecononics. In: Arestis and Chick (eds.) (1992). Recent Developments in Post
Keynesian Economics, Aldershot, Edward Elgar, p. 64-79.
———. (1992c) Prices and Pricing in the Post Keynesian and Kaleckian Traditions. In:
Mongiovi and Ruhl (eds.) (1992). Macroeconomic Theory: Diversity and Convergence.
Aldershot, Edward Elgar, p. 22-36.
SHACKLE, G. L. S. (1967) The Years of High Theory – Invention and Tradition in Economic
Thought, 1926-1939. Cambridge University Press.
SCHUMPETER, Joseph Alois (1934) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Jour-
nal of Political Economy, (42), November, p. 249-257.
SCOTSMAN (THE) (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’, Edinburgh,
August 31.
SCOTT, J. W. (1933) Joint Review of Joan Robinson’s ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’
and John Henry Buchi’s ‘Free Money, A Way Out Of The Money Maze’. Western Mail,
August 3.
SHAPIRO, Nina (1997) Imperfect Competition and Keynes. In: G. C. Harcourt and R. A.
Riach (1997). A ‘Second Edition’ of the General Theory, Routledge, v. I, p. 83-92.
SHEFFIELD DAILY TELEGRAPH (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’,
Sheffield, July 20.
SHOVE, Gerald Frank (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. The Eco-
nomic Journal, 43(172), December, p. 657-661.
SRAFFA, Piero (1926) The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions. The Economic
Journal, 36(184), December, p. 535-550.
STAR (THE) (1933) Economics for the Students: review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Compe-
tition’, Johannesburg, August 28.
STATIST (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’, October 7.
SWEEZY, Paul Marlor (1939) Demand under Conditions of Oligopoly. Journal of Political
Economy, (47), p. 568-573.
SZMRECSÁNYI, T. (1983) Apresentação. In: Joan Robinson (1962). Ensaios sobre a teoria do
crescimento econômico. São Paulo : Abril Cultural, 1983. Col. Os Economistas, trad.
Paulo de Almeida, p. 263-300.
THOMPSON, C. D. (1934) Review of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Indian
Journal of Economics, October, p. 235-237.
TIMES LITERARY SUPPLEMENT (THE) (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competi-
tion’, Londres, October 5, p. 660.
———. (1969) What is better? Joint review of Maurice Dobb, ‘Welfare Economics and the
Economics of Socialism’; of S.K. Nath, ‘A Reappraisal of Welfare Economics’, and of
Joan Robinson, ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competition’, new edition. Londres,
n. 3527, October 2.
TOBIN, James (1989) Testimony: an interview. In: Feiwel (ed.) (1989b). The Economics
of Imperfect Competition and Employment – Joan Robinson and Beyond, Macmillan,
p. 554-568.
TURNER, Marjorie (1989) Joan Robinson and the Americans. Londres/Nova York : Armonk/
M.E. Sharpe.
V. W. B. (1934) Review of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Canadian Forum,
(14), May, p. 320.
VECCHI, Nicolò De (1996) Schumpeter’s Review of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competi-

tion’: another look at Joan Robinson. In: Marcuzzo, Pasinetti and Roncaglia (1996). The
Economics of Joan Robinson. Londres : Routledge, p. 36-50.
WESTERN MORNING NEWS (1933) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’, Ply-
mouth, September 11.
WHITAKER, John K. (1989) The Cambridge Background to Imperfect Competition. In:
Feiwel (ed.) (1989b). The Economics of Imperfect Competition and Employment – Joan
Robinson and Beyond. Macmillan, p. 169-196.
YNTEMA, Theodore O. (1935) Review of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competition’.
Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, January.
ZEUTHEN, F. (n.d.) Review of ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Unidentified Scandi-
navian periodical, p. 200-205.

Labour Market and Exploitation of Labour

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labour Market and Exploitation of Labour

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C. HELLER – LABOUR MARKET AND EXPLOITATION OF LABOUR...

LABOUR MARKET AND EXPLOITATION

Joan Robinson’s The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933) is correctly

curve of the commodity to be produced by using that factor. Considering

2. DEMAND FOR LABOUR: DETERMINANT FACTORS OF THE LEVEL OF

of any commodity was fundamentally and paradoxically based on the ex-

3. THE CONCEPT OF LABOUR EXPLOITATION IN

Joan Robinson’s definition of labour exploitation had nothing to do with the

The Economics of Imperfect Competition, it occurred when workers were paid

Trade Unions or State action could eliminate or at least reduce exploitation.

commodity under consideration and its relation to the cost of production,

in size owing to an increased demand, the prices of the other factors of

It may appear strange that the removal of exploitation should ever be

The eventual outcome of the removal of imperfections, although favour-

Joan Robinson’s book received a large number of reviews, some of which

thereby [could] solve the general problem of distribution under a regime of

Joan Robinson intended to compare wages in perfect competition with

assumptions, “instead of making a radical critique of the relationship be-

In The Economics of Imperfect Competition Joan Robinson proved that un-

Em A economia da concorrência imperfeita, Joan Robinson prova que o de-

ASIMAKOPULOS, Athanasios (1988-1989) Kalecki and Joan Robinson: An Outsider’s Influ-

EDWARDS, Corwin D. (1933) Review of Edward Chamberlin, ‘The Theory of Monopolistic

KALDOR, Nicholas (1934) Mrs. Robinson’s ‘Economics of Imperfect Competition’. Econo-

VECCHI, Nicolò De (1996) Schumpeter’s Review of ‘The Economics of Imperfect Competi-

You might also like