Piero Sraffa
Piero Sraffa (1898–1983) was an Italian economist whose highly concentrated but conceptually radical work reshaped 20th‑century economic theory and had lasting implications for philosophy. Trained in law in Turin and politically opposed to Italian Fascism, he relocated to Cambridge at the invitation of John Maynard Keynes and became a central yet famously reserved figure in the Cambridge economics milieu. His early articles on cost and returns undermined key assumptions of Marshallian and neoclassical value theory. Sraffa’s decades-long editorial work on David Ricardo’s writings reconstructed the classical tradition, emphasizing a surplus-based approach to prices and distribution rather than marginal utility. His major book, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960), presented a rigorous system in which relative prices and profits are determined from physical input–output relations and the wage–profit trade‑off, without invoking marginal productivity. This framework supplied the conceptual core for the Cambridge capital controversies, challenged the coherence of neoclassical capital theory, and inspired a revival of classical and Marxian approaches. Philosophically, Sraffa’s work contributed to debates about explanation and measurement in the social sciences, the status of equilibrium, and the ontology of economic quantities. His close friendship and sustained conversations with Ludwig Wittgenstein also influenced the latter’s later philosophy, especially concerning rule-following and the critique of abstract theoretical constructions.
At a Glance
- Field
- Thinker
- Born
- 1898-08-05 — Turin, Kingdom of Italy
- Died
- 1983-09-03 — Cambridge, England, United KingdomCause: Natural causes (age-related illness)
- Active In
- Italy, United Kingdom
- Interests
- Political economyValue and distribution theoryCritique of marginalismClassical economics (Ricardo, Marx)Price theoryCapital theoryMethodology of economics
Piero Sraffa argued that the prices and distribution of income in a capitalist economy can be determined from objective, physical relations of production and a chosen distributional variable (wage or profit rate), without recourse to marginal utility, marginal productivity, or an aggregate measure of capital; this surplus-based, classical approach exposes fundamental logical weaknesses in neoclassical value and capital theory and restores an alternative conception of economic explanation grounded in social and technical relations rather than individual preferences.
Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory
Composed: Late 1920s–1960 (published 1960)
The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo
Composed: 1930s–1973 (volumes published 1951–1973)
Sulle relazioni fra costo e quantità prodotta
Composed: 1925–1926
L’inflazione monetaria in Italia durante e dopo la guerra
Composed: 1919–1920
The rate of profits, as a ratio, has a significance which is independent of any prices; it does not enter as an unknown into the system of equations of production prices, but remains always outside it.— Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Chapter I, 1960
Sraffa emphasizes that the profit rate is a distributive parameter imposed on the price system, not determined by marginal productivity or supply and demand, illustrating his surplus-based approach.
We may therefore abandon any reference to the variation of the quantities of the factors of production, and concentrate on the variations in the methods of production.— On the Relations between Cost and Quantity Produced (Economic Journal version, 1926)
In critiquing Marshallian partial equilibrium, Sraffa argues that interdependence of industries and increasing returns undermine the marginalist focus on factor variation, prefiguring his later structural method.
The standpoint adopted in this work is that of the old classical economists from Adam Smith to Ricardo.— Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Preface, 1960
Sraffa explicitly positions his theory as a revival and reconstruction of the classical tradition, contrasting it with the marginalist/neoclassical approach that dominated economics in his time.
In the case of joint products the notion of a quantity of capital used per unit of product loses all meaning.— Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, Chapter VIII, 1960
Sraffa shows that when production yields multiple outputs, the idea of a single, measurable quantity of ‘capital’ per unit is incoherent, a key step in the later philosophical critique of neoclassical capital.
We do not need to suppose that the system is in equilibrium in order to determine its normal prices.— Paraphrased synthesis of Sraffa’s position in Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, especially Chapters I–III
Though not a verbatim sentence, this captures Sraffa’s methodological stance that normal or production prices can be derived from technical conditions and distributional variables without behavioural equilibrium assumptions.
Turin Formation and Early Critique (1898–1926)
Raised in a liberal, intellectual Jewish family in Turin, Sraffa studied law under economist Luigi Einaudi, absorbing both legal reasoning and political economy. His doctoral work on inflation and his early writings on banking introduced him to the tension between theoretical constructs and institutional realities. By the mid‑1920s he produced his seminal critique of Marshallian cost curves and competitive equilibrium, showing that increasing returns and interdependence among firms undermined the standard marginalist model. This established him early as a formidable critic of dominant economic theory.
Cambridge Exile and Classical Turn (1927–1940)
Invited by Keynes, Sraffa moved to Cambridge, partly to escape Fascist persecution. Immersed in Trinity College, he engaged with Keynesians, Marshallians, and young economists such as Joan Robinson. Although he published little, he deepened his study of classical political economy, particularly Ricardo, and developed a physical-surplus perspective on production and distribution. His methodological stance shifted toward reconstruction of a coherent classical system as an alternative, not a variant, to marginalism.
Ricardo Edition and Conceptual Consolidation (1940–1960)
During and after World War II, Sraffa devoted enormous effort to editing the multi-volume *Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo*. This project required meticulous philological work but also conceptual reconstruction of Ricardo’s theory. Through this, Sraffa clarified a surplus-based, non-marginalist understanding of value and distribution. In parallel, mostly in private notes, he developed the formal system that culminated in *Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities*, unifying his classical insights into a compact, axiomatic framework.
Production of Commodities and the Sraffian School (1960–1983)
The 1960 publication of *Production of Commodities* crystallized Sraffa’s mature thought and sparked intense debate. His price system, based on physical input–output relations and distributional variables, became a focal point in the Cambridge capital controversies and inspired a ‘neo-Ricardian’ or Sraffian school. Philosophers and methodologists engaged with his work as a model of structural, non-behavioural explanation in economics. During these years Sraffa himself withdrew from public controversy, leaving followers to elaborate and defend the philosophical and economic implications of his framework.
1. Introduction
Piero Sraffa (1898–1983) was an Italian-born economist whose sparse but conceptually far‑reaching writings reshaped debates on value, distribution, and the foundations of economic theory in the 20th century. Working largely from Cambridge in the United Kingdom, he developed a surplus-based framework for understanding prices and profits that stood in explicit contrast to marginalist and neoclassical approaches.
Sraffa is best known for his 1960 book Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, which models an economy as a system of interdependent industries using produced inputs to generate outputs. In this framework, relative prices and the wage–profit relationship can be derived from observable technical conditions of production and a chosen distributive variable, without reference to utility, marginal productivity, or an aggregate quantity of capital.
His long-term editorial work on The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo repositioned Ricardo and the classical tradition as systematic alternatives to marginalism rather than as its precursors. This historical reconstruction underpins what is often called Sraffian or neo‑Ricardian economics.
Sraffa’s analysis played a central role in the Cambridge capital controversies, which questioned the internal coherence of neoclassical capital theory and its account of the relationship between profits, capital intensity, and technique choice. Beyond economics narrowly conceived, his ideas have influenced philosophy of economics, social ontology, and—indirectly—philosophy of language through his intellectual relationship with Ludwig Wittgenstein.
The sections that follow examine Sraffa’s life and context, the evolution of his thought, his major works, the structure of his theoretical system, the ensuing critiques of marginalism and capital theory, methodological implications, connections with Wittgenstein, and subsequent developments in the Sraffian tradition.
2. Life and Historical Context
Sraffa’s life was shaped by the political and intellectual upheavals of early 20th‑century Europe. Born in Turin into a prominent liberal Jewish family, he grew up in an environment closely connected to Italian legal scholarship and reformist politics. His father, Angelo Sraffa, was a distinguished jurist, which exposed Piero early to systematic reasoning and public institutions.
Political and Academic Milieu
Sraffa studied law at the University of Turin under Luigi Einaudi, a leading liberal economist and future president of Italy. Post‑World War I Italy faced inflation, social conflict, and rising Fascism; these conditions informed Sraffa’s early research on banking and monetary instability.
The consolidation of Mussolini’s regime altered his trajectory. Sraffa’s critical stance and his connections with anti‑Fascist circles, including Antonio Gramsci, made Italy increasingly perilous. In this context, John Maynard Keynes invited him to Cambridge in the late 1920s, providing an academic refuge and embedding him within a different intellectual tradition.
Cambridge and Interwar Economics
At Cambridge, Sraffa encountered a community dominated by Marshallian economics but in flux due to Keynes’s macroeconomic innovations. Interwar Britain was marked by unemployment, debates over free trade, and the gold standard; within this setting, Sraffa’s early critique of Marshallian cost theory resonated with dissatisfaction about orthodox models’ realism.
War, Exile, and Postwar Context
Sraffa remained in Britain throughout World War II, while Fascist anti‑Jewish legislation and the war devastated Italian intellectual life. After 1945, as Keynesianism and neoclassical synthesis came to dominate policy and academic economics, Sraffa pursued an alternative classical reconstruction. The Cold War environment and renewed interest in Marx and Ricardo gave his work additional, though often contested, significance, especially among heterodox economists and critical theorists.
3. Intellectual Development
Sraffa’s intellectual trajectory is often described in distinct but overlapping phases, each marked by shifts in focus and method while retaining a consistent concern with the foundations of price and distribution theory.
From Legal Training to Economic Critique
Trained formally in law, Sraffa approached economics with a jurist’s attention to internal consistency and institutional detail. His early work on inflation and banking in postwar Italy already displayed scepticism toward abstract monetary theories detached from concrete institutional arrangements. Under Luigi Einaudi, he engaged with both classical and marginalist authors, beginning a lifelong dialogue between these traditions.
Marshallian Critique and the Turn to Interdependence
In the mid‑1920s, Sraffa’s articles on cost and returns challenged core Marshallian assumptions. He argued that increasing returns and the interdependence of industries undermined the standard partial‑equilibrium story based on downward‑sloping supply curves. This shifted his attention from isolated firms to the structure of the economy as a system of simultaneous relations, presaging his later input–output approach.
The Classical Turn in Cambridge
Once in Cambridge, Sraffa increasingly immersed himself in classical political economy, especially Ricardo. Contemporaries report that by the 1930s he had become convinced that the classical authors offered not a primitive version of marginalism but a distinct surplus-based perspective. His engagement with Keynesian debates was largely indirect; he contributed little publicly but debated intensely in private, while elaborating his own alternative framework.
Ricardo Edition and Formation of the Sraffian System
The decades-long Ricardo editorial project (from the 1930s to the 1970s) compelled Sraffa to reconstruct Ricardo’s concepts with philological precision. Many scholars argue that this work sharpened his distinction between technical conditions of production and distributive variables. In parallel, he developed, mostly in unpublished notes, a formal price system based on physical coefficients, culminating in Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960). This work represents the consolidation of his intellectual development into a compact, axiomatic expression of the surplus approach.
4. Major Works and Editorial Projects
Sraffa’s reputation rests on a small number of publications and one monumental editorial enterprise, each serving a specific role in his reconstruction of classical economics and critique of marginalism.
Key Original Works
| Work | Period | Main Focus | Typical Interpretations |
|---|---|---|---|
| On the Relations between Cost and Quantity Produced (1925–26) | Early 1920s | Laws of returns, firm cost curves | A systematic critique of Marshallian partial equilibrium and supply curves under increasing returns |
| Monetary and banking writings (including thesis on inflation) | 1919–20 | Italian wartime inflation, banking practices | Empirical and institutional analysis of monetary instability; early sign of concern with real-world institutions |
| Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities (1960) | Late 1920s–1960 | Price and distribution theory in a surplus framework | A self-contained classical system and a “prelude to a critique” of marginalism; foundation of Sraffian economics |
In On the Relations between Cost and Quantity Produced, Sraffa argued that firms facing increasing returns and mutual dependence cannot be adequately represented by standard U‑shaped cost curves, raising doubts about marginalist equilibrium analysis.
Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities provided a compact mathematical representation of an economy in which industries use commodity inputs and labour to produce outputs. It derives relative prices and the wage–profit frontier from technical input–output data and a distributive parameter, without behavioural assumptions about optimization.
The Ricardo Edition
Sraffa served as general editor of the 10‑volume Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo (1951–73) for Cambridge University Press.
| Aspect | Significance |
|---|---|
| Textual reconstruction | Established authoritative texts of Ricardo’s writings and letters, correcting earlier editions |
| Interpretive apparatus | Extensive introductions and notes argued for a surplus-based reading of Ricardo |
| Historical impact | Reinvigorated scholarly and theoretical interest in classical political economy |
Proponents maintain that the edition redefined Ricardo as a rigorous theorist of production and surplus, rather than as a precursor of marginal utility theory. Some historians, however, suggest that Sraffa’s editorial choices may reflect his own theoretical agenda as much as Ricardo’s original intentions.
5. Core Ideas and Theoretical Framework
Sraffa’s mature framework, set out in Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, is a classical–surplus theory of value and distribution built on physical input–output relations.
Commodity Production and Price Equations
The economy is represented as a system where each industry uses produced means of production and labour to generate commodity outputs. For each industry, Sraffa writes an equation equating the value of inputs plus profits to the value of outputs at normal prices. Taken together, these equations determine a set of relative prices up to a numéraire.
A central feature is that the rate of profit is treated as an exogenous distributional variable, not determined by marginal productivity:
“The rate of profits, as a ratio, has a significance which is independent of any prices…”
— Piero Sraffa, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, ch. I
Given the technical coefficients and either the wage or the profit rate, the system yields the other distributive variable and the set of prices.
Surplus Approach and Normal Prices
Sraffa adopts the standpoint of the old classical economists “from Adam Smith to Ricardo”, focusing on the surplus: the excess of output over the inputs necessary to reproduce the system. Prices of production (normal prices) are conceived as centres of gravity around which market prices fluctuate, determined independently of short-term demand shifts or utility.
Wage–Profit Frontier and Capital
The model implies a wage–profit frontier: for given techniques, there is an inverse relationship between the real wage and the profit rate consistent with reproduction. No aggregate quantity of “capital” is required; instead, capital is implicitly represented by the vector of produced means of production.
Interpreters differ on how far this framework is purely positive (a description of long‑period relations) or also critical, primarily designed to show the dispensability of marginalist concepts. Sraffa’s subtitle—“Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory”—has been read both ways.
6. Critique of Marginalism and Capital Theory
While Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities is largely constructive, it has widely been interpreted as underpinning a far-reaching critique of marginalism, especially of neoclassical capital theory.
Challenge to Marginalist Value Theory
Sraffa’s system determines prices and distribution without invoking demand schedules, utility, or marginal productivity. Proponents argue that this demonstrates the logical non‑necessity of marginalist concepts for solving the central problems of price and income distribution. The profit rate, in particular, is introduced as a socially determined parameter, rather than as the marginal product of an aggregate capital stock.
Critics of this interpretation maintain that Sraffa’s model describes only a special “long-period” situation and that marginalist analysis might still apply at other levels (e.g., intertemporal choice, short-run behaviour). Some also argue that Sraffa does not provide a theory of demand, limiting his capacity to replace marginalism as a general theory of value.
Capital, Reswitching, and the Cambridge Controversies
Sraffa’s framework uses heterogeneous capital goods represented by physical input vectors, avoiding any single scalar measure of “capital”. Within this setting, subsequent authors (notably Luigi Pasinetti, Pierangelo Garegnani, and others) used Sraffian techniques to demonstrate phenomena such as reswitching of techniques and capital reversing:
| Phenomenon | Implication for Neoclassical Theory |
|---|---|
| Reswitching | A technique can be cost-minimising at both high and low profit rates but not in between, contradicting the assumed monotonic substitution between capital and labour. |
| Capital reversing | A fall in the profit rate can be associated with a shift towards techniques that use less “capital” per worker (in value terms), undermining the presumed inverse relation between the profit rate and capital intensity. |
Proponents contend that these results, made transparent in Sraffian models, reveal that the neoclassical aggregate production function with a well-behaved marginal product of capital is not generally valid.
Some neoclassical economists respond that such pathologies may be empirically rare or can be circumvented by recasting capital within general equilibrium or intertemporal frameworks. Others argue that capital-theoretic anomalies do not invalidate marginalist reasoning about individual firm behaviour.
Overall, Sraffian analysis has become a central reference in debates over whether neoclassical capital theory is a coherent and empirically defensible account of distribution and technique choice.
7. Methodology and Philosophy of Economics
Sraffa’s work has been interpreted as advancing a distinctive methodological stance in economics, though he wrote little explicitly on methodology. His practice suggests a preference for structural, surplus-based explanation over behavioural, utility-based accounts.
Structural vs. Individualistic Explanation
Sraffa’s price system abstracts from individual preferences and optimization, focusing instead on technical relations of production and social distributional parameters. Philosophers and economists have regarded this as an exemplar of structural explanation:
| Feature | Sraffian Approach | Marginalist Approach (typical) |
|---|---|---|
| Basic units | Industries, techniques, surplus | Individual agents, utility, endowments |
| Key variables | Input–output coefficients, wage, profit rate | Preferences, technology, factor supplies |
| Explanatory mode | Simultaneous relations, reproduction conditions | Equilibrium of supply and demand via optimization |
Proponents argue that this illustrates how economic phenomena can be explained without methodological individualism. Others suggest that Sraffa’s framework is compatible with, but not a substitute for, micro‑founded accounts that operate at a different explanatory level.
Normal Prices and Equilibrium
Sraffa’s normal prices are determined without a detailed story of market adjustment. Some see this as a critique of equilibrium narratives that rely on hypothetical tâtonnement or perfect competition. On this view, his method treats prices of production as analytical constructs capturing long-period reproduction conditions and distributive norms, not as the outcomes of actual market clearing.
Critics maintain that without behavioural and dynamic content, Sraffa’s model may be incomplete as an explanatory theory of market economies, functioning primarily as a comparative‑statics device or a diagnostic tool.
Realism, Measurement, and Theory-Ladenness
Sraffa’s reliance on observable technical coefficients has been associated with a more realist orientation in economics, in contrast with models built on unobservable utility functions. His role in the capital debates has also fed philosophical discussions about measurement: the Sraffian analysis suggests that quantities such as “capital” may be theory-laden, depending on the price system they are supposed to explain.
Some philosophers embrace Sraffa as supporting a critical, historically informed realism about economic categories; others caution that his high level of abstraction and stylization complicates straightforward realist readings.
8. Relations with Wittgenstein and Indirect Philosophical Influence
Sraffa’s intellectual relationship with Ludwig Wittgenstein is widely regarded as important for the development of Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, although the evidence is indirect and interpretations vary.
Personal and Intellectual Contact
Sraffa and Wittgenstein both resided in Cambridge and met regularly from the late 1920s onward. Contemporary testimonies (for example, from G. H. von Wright) portray their conversations as intense and wide‑ranging, touching on language, rules, and the status of theoretical constructions. Sraffa’s outsider stance toward mainstream economics and his sensitivity to institutional detail reportedly impressed Wittgenstein, who was then moving away from the logical atomism of the Tractatus.
The “Neapolitan Gesture” and Rule-Following
A famous anecdote recounts Sraffa challenging Wittgenstein’s idea of a logically ideal language by making a Neapolitan hand gesture and asking what its “logical form” was. Some commentators view this as crystallizing Wittgenstein’s shift toward regarding meaning as rooted in use within forms of life, rather than in an isomorphic logical structure.
While there is no direct documentary evidence from Sraffa himself on this episode, Wittgenstein acknowledged Sraffa’s influence in the Preface to the Philosophical Investigations, thanking him for “the most constant and the most fruitful” criticisms.
Indirect Influence on Philosophy
Through his interactions with Wittgenstein and his own economic work, Sraffa has been linked (often posthumously) to several philosophical currents:
- Philosophy of language and mind: Commentators suggest that Sraffa’s scepticism toward self-contained formal systems resonated with Wittgenstein’s later emphasis on ordinary practices and rule-following.
- Social and political philosophy: The Sraffian surplus approach has influenced Marxist and post‑Keynesian thinkers re‑examining exploitation, class, and the material basis of social relations.
- Philosophy of science: Sraffa’s modelling of economies via interdependent structures rather than individualist microfoundations has informed debates about reductionism and the autonomy of macro‑level explanations.
Some scholars caution against overstating Sraffa’s direct philosophical role, noting his own reticence and the limited textual record. Nonetheless, his presence in Wittgenstein’s intellectual environment and the later uptake of his economic theory have made him a reference point in discussions about the intersection of economics and philosophy.
9. Impact on Economic Thought and the Sraffian School
Sraffa’s work generated a distinctive current in economic theory often called Sraffian or neo‑Ricardian economics, and it has had lasting effects on several branches of heterodox thought.
Formation of the Sraffian School
From the 1960s onward, a group of economists—among them Luigi Pasinetti, Pierangelo Garegnani, Ian Steedman, and others—systematically developed Sraffa’s surplus-based framework. Their work extended his model to questions of growth, technical change, income distribution, and international trade.
| Domain | Sraffian Contributions |
|---|---|
| Growth and distribution | Models in which long-run growth and distribution are determined by savings behaviour, technology, and social norms, often integrating Keynesian effective demand with Sraffian prices. |
| Capital theory | Formalization of reswitching and capital reversing; critiques of aggregate production functions. |
| International trade | Analyses of comparative advantage and terms of trade using Sraffian prices of production rather than neoclassical factor endowments. |
Interactions with Other Schools
Sraffian economics has interacted in complex ways with other heterodox traditions:
- Post‑Keynesian economics: Many post‑Keynesians adopt Sraffian long-period prices as the anchor for Keynesian short-run dynamics, though some favour more explicitly monetary or institutional approaches.
- Marxian economics: Sraffian models have been used both to support and to criticise labour‑value theories. Some Marxists see Sraffa as clarifying the transformation problem; others argue that his non‑labour conception of surplus moves too far from Marx.
- Mainstream economics: While few mainstream economists adopt Sraffian frameworks, the capital debates influenced by Sraffa prompted refinements in general equilibrium and intertemporal models.
Reception and Controversy
Proponents of Sraffian economics claim that it offers a coherent alternative paradigm for value and distribution, more consistent with the classical tradition and empirically relevant for analysing profit–wage conflicts. Critics argue that Sraffian models lack a micro‑behavioural foundation, underplay demand and expectations, or have had limited practical influence on empirical research and policy.
Despite divergent evaluations, Sraffa’s work continues to be taught and debated in courses on history of economic thought, capital theory, and heterodox economics, sustaining a specialized but active research community.
10. Legacy and Historical Significance
Sraffa’s legacy is multifaceted, spanning technical economics, the history of thought, and broader intellectual history. Although he published comparatively little, his influence has been disproportionate to his output.
Reassessment of Classical Political Economy
Through both his theoretical work and the Ricardo edition, Sraffa contributed to a major revaluation of the classical economists. Historians credit him with helping to establish the idea that Smith, Ricardo, and Marx articulated a surplus-based approach fundamentally distinct from marginalism. This has shaped contemporary scholarship on classical political economy and its relevance for modern theory.
Role in the Capital Debates
In the Cambridge capital controversies, Sraffian analysis was central to questioning the coherence of neoclassical conceptions of capital and distribution. Even economists who reject Sraffian conclusions generally acknowledge that these debates exposed important conceptual limitations of aggregate production functions and simple marginal productivity stories.
Enduring Methodological Reference Point
Sraffa’s structural approach has made him a continuing reference in discussions of methodological pluralism in economics. For some, he exemplifies a rigorous, non‑marginalist mode of theorizing that supports the coexistence of multiple explanatory frameworks. Others view his work as highlighting the tensions between long‑period, structural models and behavioural, market‑process analyses.
Wider Intellectual Resonance
In intellectual history, Sraffa is often cited as a bridge between economics and philosophy, particularly through his connection with Wittgenstein and his impact on Marxist and post‑Keynesian thought. His ideas have informed debates about class, exploitation, and the material structure of economies in social and political theory.
Assessments of Sraffa’s ultimate historical significance vary. Some portray him as inaugurating a potential paradigm shift that remains incomplete; others regard his contributions as primarily critical, clarifying the limits of certain neoclassical claims rather than providing a fully operational alternative. Nonetheless, his work continues to shape scholarly discussions on the foundations and future directions of economic theory.
How to Cite This Entry
Use these citation formats to reference this thinkers entry in your academic work. Click the copy button to copy the citation to your clipboard.
Philopedia. (2025). Piero Sraffa. Philopedia. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/piero-sraffa/
"Piero Sraffa." Philopedia, 2025, https://philopedia.com/thinkers/piero-sraffa/.
Philopedia. "Piero Sraffa." Philopedia. Accessed December 11, 2025. https://philopedia.com/thinkers/piero-sraffa/.
@online{philopedia_piero_sraffa,
title = {Piero Sraffa},
author = {Philopedia},
year = {2025},
url = {https://philopedia.com/thinkers/piero-sraffa/},
urldate = {December 11, 2025}
}Note: This entry was last updated on 2025-12-10. For the most current version, always check the online entry.