Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:15:26.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Demand Conditions and the Interpretation of Ricardo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Giovanni A. Caravale
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Kenneth J. Arrow's recent article on Ricardian theory (Arrow 1991) represents the occasion for a renewed discussion of the basic building blocks of the classics' analytical scheme and of the role of demand conditions in this context. Arrow's argument pivots around two ideas: that Ricardo's theory is built without any reference to demand, and that the role of demand can be conceived of only within the logical context of neoclassical demand functions, which are absent in Ricardo, thus making his theoretical scheme irremediably weak. These ideas form the basis of a drastically dichotomized representation on the part of Arrow of current interpretations of Ricardo. On the one hand are the neoclassical-type views, epitomized by his own position, with their emphasis on the allocation problem; on the other hand are the purely cost-oriented neo-Ricardian interpretations, with their strongly Marxist ideological bias.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , Fall 1994 , pp. 229 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

REFERENCES

Arrow, K. J. 1991. “Ricardo's Work as Viewed by Later Economists,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, Spring, 70–77.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1990. “On the Historiography of Economics,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12, Spring, 27–37.Google Scholar
Caravale, G. 1985. “Diminishing Returns and Accumulation in Ricardo” in Caravale, G., ed., The Legacy of Ricardo, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Caravale, G. 1989. “On Marx's Interpretation of Ricardo: A Note,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 17, 12, 6–12.Google Scholar
Caravale, G. 1991. “On the Role of Demand in Ricardo and Marshall,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, Fall, 175–83.Google Scholar
Caravale, G. 1992. “Alcune Considerazioni sulla Nozione di Equilibrio nella Teoria Economica,” Studi Economici, 47, 5–44.Google Scholar
Caravale, G. 1994. “Prices and Quantities—Walras, Sraffa and Beyond,” Studi Economici, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Caravale, G. and Tosato, D.. 1980. Ricardo and the Theory of Value, Distribution and Growth, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Eltis, W. 1984. The Classical Theory of Economic Growth, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Eltis, W. 1993. Classical Economics, Public Expenditure and Growth, Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Garegnani, P. 1983. “The Classical Theory of Wages and the Role of Demand Schedules in the Determination of Relative Prices,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 73, 05, 309–13.Google Scholar
Garegnani, P. 1984. “Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists and Marx,” Oxford Economic Papers, 36, 291–325.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. 1939. Value and Capital, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. 1965. Capital and Growth, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. 1985. “Sraffa and Ricardo: A Critical View,” in Caravale, G., ed., The Legacy of Ricardo, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hollander, S. 1987. Classical Economics, Oxford, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hollander, S. 1991. “On the Endogeneity of the Margin and Related Issues in Ricardian Economics,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, Fall, 159–74.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. 1993. “Professor Arrow's Ricardo,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15, Spring, 54–71.Google Scholar
Mongiovi, G. 1989. “The Role of Demand in the Classical Theory of Price” in Walker, D. A., ed., Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, 1, Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Pasinetti, L. 1960. “A Mathematical Formulation of the Ricardian System,” Review of Economic Studies, 27, February, 78–98.Google Scholar
Pasinetti, L. 1981. Structural Change and Economic Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pasinetti, L. 1982. “A Comment on the ‘New View’ of the Ricardian System” in Advances in Economic Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Peach, T. 1984. “David Ricardo's Early Treatment of Profitability,” Economic Journal, 94, December, 733–51.Google Scholar
Peach, T. 1993. Interpreting Ricardo, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Porta, P. L. 1983. “Introduzione” in Principi di Economia Politica e dell'Imposta di D. Ricardo, UTET, Torino.Google Scholar
Porta, P. L. 1985. “The Debate on Ricardo: Old Results in New Frameworks,” in Caravale, G., ed., The Legacy of Ricardo, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Rankin, S. C. 1980. “Supply and Demand in Ricardian Price Theory: a Reinterpretation,” Oxford Economic Papers, 32, 03, 241–62.Google Scholar
Ricardo, D. 1951–1973. Works and Correspondence, I–XI, edited by Sraffa, P. with the collaboration of Dobb, M. H., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1983. “The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres,” in Philosophy in History, edited by Rorty, R., Schneewind, J. B. and Skinner, Q., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1987. “Sraffian Economics” in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, edited by John, Eatwell, Murray, Milgate, and Peter, Newman, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. 1991. “Sraffa's Other Leg,” Economic Journal, 101, 05, 570–74.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1973. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Viner, J. 1932. “Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” Zeitschrift für Nationalokonomie, 3, 23–46.Google Scholar