Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:15:25.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Four Contributions to Doctrinal History

Review products

Studies in the Labor Theory of Value. By MeekRonald L.. Second edition; New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976. Pp. xliv, 332. $17.50.
James and John Stuart Mill: Papers of the Centenary Conference. Edited by RobsonJohn M. and LaineMichael. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1976. Pp. ix, 162. $15.00.
Essays on Hayek. Edited by MachlupFritz. New York: New York University Press, 1976. Pp. xxiv, 182. $10.00.

Show more reviewed productsShow more reviewed products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Martin Bronfenbrenner
Martin Bronfenbrenner
Affiliation:
Duke University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 1977 , pp. 466 - 471
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Whitaker, Albert C., History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value in English Political Economy (New York, 1904)Google Scholar.

2 Cannan, Edwin, History of the Theories of Production and Distribution in English Political Economy from 1776 to 1848 (London, 1898; 3rd ed., 1917)Google Scholar.

3 Samuelson, Paul A., “Understanding the Marxian Notion of Exploitation,” Journal of Economic Literature, 9 (June 1971), 399–431Google Scholar. See also Martin Bronfenbrenner, “Samuelson, Marx, and Their Latest Critics,” ibid., 11 (March 1973), 58–63.

4 Morishima, Michio, Marx's Economics: A Dual Theory of Value and Growth (New York and London, 1973)Google Scholar.

5 In addition, Professor J. H. Burns' essay on James Mill's anti-Benthamite concept of “philosophical history” (however badly reflected in the more supercilious passages of the History of British India) and Robson's discussion of the two Mills' views of “human nature” are of peripheral interest to both economists and economic historians.

6 Blaug, Mark, Economic Theory in Retrospect (Homewood, ill., 1962), ch. 4, esp. pp. 81–113, 126–128Google Scholar, summarizing his earlier dissertation, “Ricardian Economics” (New Haven, 1958).

7 For Marx on Mill, see Capital (Kerr ed.), Vol. I, p. 669, n. 1. A more derogatory reference (ibid., vol. Ill, p. 653) was apparently written by Engels.

8 Despite his status as Veblen's intellectual heir, Ayres was never a Veblen student. The two men were located physically close to each other during Ayres' tenure at Amherst College and at the New Republic, but I do not know the extent of their personal acquaintance.

9 This clause, in my view, applies less to Ayres than to many other institutionalists, such as the Commons-inspired group of the “Wisconsin school.”