Talk:Feldman–Mahalanobis model

There are some quite gratuitous remarks in the introduction to this article as it exists on 5-30-2014:

1. It is claimed that the Feldman-Mahalanobis model is "Neo-Marxist." There is no basis for this assertion. This model is a technical characterization of economic growth in a two-sector context. It employs no characteristically Marxist concepts, such as exploitation, surplus value, capitalist class, or working class. Apparently having been developed in the Soviet Union is seen as making this model "Neo-Marxist." But we would not say that Linear Programming was a "Neo-Marxist" technique merely on account of its having been developed in the Soviet Union, by Leonid Kantorovich.

2. It says, "The distinction between the two different types of goods was a clearer formulation of Marx’s ideas in Das Kapital." This assertion is unsupported, and indeed, it is very difficult to detect any substantial connection between this model and the arguments made in Capital. (Minor point: why use the German title of this work, which is widely available in English?)

I propose to modify the introductory section to eliminate both these gratuitous assertions. Mark Morss (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned that the section, "Implementation of the Model" contains a long sentence, beginning, "The most fundamental criticisms came from Mahalanobis," which is both unsourced and which more properly belongs in the section, "Criticisms." I propose that this sentence either be moved to and/or integrated into "Criticisms," or simply eliminated. Mark Morss (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the entire "Criticism" section is poorly expressed, (who is "he"?), and fundamentally does not apply in context of Soviet economic development 1925-1940. E.g., absense of taxation, absence of foreign sector, assumption that savings originates in capital-goods-producing sector. These are expressed too much as fundamental criticisms and not enough as limitations to its applications outside the Soviet experience.

The model indeed both offers a rationalization of Soviet development policy before World War II, and explains its notable success. Observations along these lines should be included, and I propose to do this. Mark Morss (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should remove, or source the criticisms section. The issue is it seems to be geared toward the Indian, not the Soviet economy.

Here is a blog post that has a positive spin on its role in the Indian economy. http://risklatte.com/Blogs/IMA/FEAnalysis11.php

In his book "Farm to Factory" economic historian Robert Allen argued that the Feldman model was crucial in Soviet development and that it allowed the government to increase its capital stock while simultaneously increasing consumer goods.(p54-55 & 63) It increase the production possibilities frontier of the country allowing the country to make more favorites while not sacrificing consumption.

Mark, you said the model is not "Neo-Marxist". This I would disagree with. Robert Allen said in his book that the model is derived from the Marxian assumption that an economy can be divided into two sectors, producer goods and consumer goods(p 54-55). If it is not Marxist, it is at least influenced by Marxian ideas.

Paper explaining the model http://www.1970splus50.com/Macro/16-Feldman.pdf NeoStalinist (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]