On the Influence of Piero Sraffa on the Contributions of Joan Robinson to Economic Theory
探讨皮耶罗·斯拉法对琼·罗宾逊经济理论的影响，基于两人在剑桥的长期合作与交流，尤其关注斯拉法1926年文章对罗宾逊《不完全竞争经济学》的启发。
Joan Robinson and Piero Sraffa died within a month of each other in 1983. Sraffa who was born in August 1898 was five years older than Joan Robinson; they had known one another for over fifty years. Joan Robinson had been to Sraffa's lectures in Cambridge in the late 1920's and they were colleagues in the Faculty of Economics and Politics from 1931 on when Joan Robinson was appointed to an Assistant Lectureship. Sraffa himself had been appointed to a teaching post in 1927 but, as Austin Robinson (1977, p. 29) recalls, in 1930 he begged to be taken off teaching. He retained the post of Marshall librarian and soon after resigning his lectureship, the post of mentor to the research students was created for him. This allowed him to work on the Ricardo volumes and it relieved him of the anxieties which teaching, especially the critical destruction of the arguments of people whose work he admired, Marshall, for example, caised him. Joan Robinson's first major work, The Economics of Imperfect Competition, Joan Robinson (1933a), was inspired by the 'pregnant suggestion' in Sraffa's 1926 article in this JOURNAL concerning the generality of monopoly rather than competition as the way forward in the theory of value. They were both part of the small group of exceptional young people who constituted the 'circus' which in the early 1930's argued out the Treatise and discussed with Keynes (through the Messenger Angel from the Gods, Richard Kahn, see JMK vol. XIII, p. 339) the emerging questions to be tackled and the arguments of the General Theory. Joan Robinson remained an ardent Keynesian though increasingly she was to adopt the structures by which Kalecki independently discovered the principal contributions of General Theory. If we may judge from the written record (but let us do a Patinkin),' Sraffa was more and more to distance himself from Keynes of the General Theory. Partly this may have been because he conceived of his own project of the revival of classical political economy, especially of the concept of the surplus as the core of the