Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:55:00.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marx, Jones, Rodbertus and the Theory of Absolute Rent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

M. C. Howard  and
J. E. King
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As is well-known, Karl Marx distinguished three types of rent. In addition to two categories of differential rent, closely related to the Ricardian extensive and intensive margins, he argued (against David Ricardo) that rent was paid on the least fertile land. For Marx this so-called “absolute rent” resulted from the barrier posed by landed property to the free movement of capital into agricultural production. Since the organic composition of capital was relatively low in agriculture, the prices of production of farm products were lower than their labor values. The existence of private property in land prevented the reduction of agricultural prices to these prices of production, and allowed the payment of rent even on what could be described, in Ricardian terms, as marginal land. There exists a sizeable literature on Marx's theory of absolute rent,1 but there is no systematic account of its gestation and development. In this paper we explain how Marx's critique of Ricardian rent theory evolved between his first doubts early in 1851 and the articulation of a distinctive alternative analysis in the manuscripts of 1862–63. We also assess the influence exerted on Marx by Richard Jones and Johann Karl Rodbertus, and briefly discuss the significance of Marx's theory of absolute rent for his political economy as a whole.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Spring 1992 , pp. 70 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Ball, M. 1980. “On Marx's Theory of Agricultural Rent: A Reply to Ben Fine,” Economy and Society, 9, 304–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortkiewicz, L. von. 1910–11. “Die Rodbertus'sche Grundrententheorie und die Marxsche Lehre von der absoluten Grundrente,” Archiv für die Geschichte des Sozialismus und der Arbeiterbewegung, 1, 1–40, 391–434.Google Scholar
Bray, J. F. 1839. Labour's Wrongs and Labour's Remedy: Or, the Age of Might and the Age of Right, David Green, Leeds; reprinted London School of Economics, London, 1931.Google Scholar
Brewer, A. 1984. A Guide to Marx's “Capital,” Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bryan, D. 1990. “‘Natural’ and ‘Improved’ Land in Marx's Theory of Rent,” Land Economics, 66, 176–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, N. -T. 1930. Richard Jones: An Early English Institutionalist, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Claeys, G. 1987. Machinery, Money and the Millenium: From Moral Economy to Socialism, 1815–1860, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
De Marchi, N. B. and Sturges, R. P.. 1973. “Malthus and Ricardo's Inductivist Critics: Four Letters to William Whewell,” Economica, n. s., 40, 379–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, C. J. 1974. “The Rehabilitation of the Peasant Proprietor in Neoclassical Economic Thought,” History of Political Economy, 6, 17–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, K. 1899. “Die Grundrententheorie im Ökonomischen System von Karl Marx,” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 3d ser., 17, 433–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draper, H. 1985. The Marx-Engels Chronicle. Volume I of the Marx-Engels Cyclopedia, Schocken books, New York.Google Scholar
Edmonds, T. R. 1828. Practical Moral and Political Economy, Wilson, E., London; reprinted New York, Kelley, 1969.Google Scholar
Engels, F. 1885. “Preface” to Marx, K., Capital, Volume II, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1961.Google Scholar
Evans, A. W. 1991. “On Monopoly Rent,” Land Economics, 67, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. 1984. “Karl Marx's First Confrontation with Political Economy: The 1844 Manuscripts,” Economy and Society, 13, 115–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, M. 1985. Review of Oakley, (1984), Manchester School, 53, 113–15.Google Scholar
Fine, B. 1979. “On Marx's Theory of Agricultural Rent,” Economy and Society, 8, 241–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, B. 1980. “On Marx's Theory of Agricultural Rent: A Rejoinder,” Economy and Society, 9, 327–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, B. 1982. Theories of the Capitalist Economy, Arnold, London.Google Scholar
Gray, J. 1831. The Social System, Tait, W., Edinburgh; reprinted New York, Kelley, 1973.Google Scholar
Grossman, H. 1943. “The Evolutionist Revolt Against Classical Economics. II. In England – James Steuart, Richard Jones, Karl Marx,” Journal of Political Economy, 51, 506–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, D. 1982. The Limits to Capital, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hennings, K. H. 1985. “A Note on Marx's Reading List in His Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844,” Economy and Society, 14, 128–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilferding, R. 1911–12. “Aus der Vorgeschichte der Marxschen Ökonomie,” Die Neue Zeit, 30, 343–54.Google Scholar
Hodgskin, T. 1827. Popular Political Economy, Tait, C. and Tait, W., London; reprinted Kelley, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
Hopkins, T. 1828. On Rent of Land, and its Influence on Subsistence and Population, Hunt and Clarke, London.Google Scholar
Howard, M. C. and King, J. E.. 1985. The Political Economy of Marx, 2d ed., Longman, Harlow.Google Scholar
Jones, R. 1831. An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth and the Sources of Taxation, Murray, London.Google Scholar
King, J. E. 1983. “Utopian or Scientific? A Reconsideration of the Ricardian Socialists,” History of Political Economy, 14, 345–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krader, L. 1975. The Asiatic Mode of Production: Sources, Development and Critique in the Writings of Karl Marx, Van Gorcum, Assen.Google Scholar
Lallier, A. G. 1989. The Economics of Marx's “Grundrisse”: An Annotated Summary, Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loria, A. 1895. “L'Opera posthuma di Carlo Marx,” Nuova Antologia, 02 1, 460–96.Google Scholar
Mandel, E. 1971. The Formation of the Economic Thought of Karl Marx, Monthly Review Press, New York.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1969a. Theories of Surplus Value, Volume I, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1969b. Theories of Surplus Value, Volume II, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1971a. The Poverty of Philosophy, International Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1971b. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1972aa. Theories of Surplus Value, Volume III, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1972b. Capital, Volume III, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. 1973. Grundrisse, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. 1975. Collected Works: Volume 3, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. 1980. Collected Works: Volume 16, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. 1982. Collected Works: Volume 38, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. 1983. Collected Works: Volume 39, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. 1985. Collected Works: Volume 41, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. 1988. Collected Works: Volume 30, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Marx, K. and Engels, F.. 1989. Collected Works: Volume 31, Lawrence and Wishart, London.Google Scholar
Miller, W. L. 1971. “Richard Jones: A Case Study in Method,” History of Political Economy, 3, 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, W. L. 1977. “Richard Jones's Contribution to the Theory of Rent,” History of Political Economy, 346–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. 1977. “Value and Theory of Rent: Part One,” Capital and Class, 3, 100–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. 1978. “Value and Theory of Rent: Part Two,” Capital and Class, 4, 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, A. 1976. “Two Notes on Marx and the ‘Transformation Problem,’” Economica, 43, 411–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, A. 1983. The Making of Marx's Critical Theory: A Bibliographical Analysis, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Oakley, A. 1984. Marx's Critique of Political Economy: Intellectual Sources and Evolution. Volume I: 1844 to 1860, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Oakley, A. 1985. Marx's Critique of Political Economy: Intellectual Sources and Evolution. Volume II: 1861 to 1863, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Rashid, S. 1979. “Richard Jones and Baconian Historicism at Cambridge,” Journal of Economic Issues, 13, 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey, P.-P. 1973. Les Alliances des Classes, Maspero, Paris.Google Scholar
Rodbertus, J. K. 1851. Sociale Briefe an von Kirchmann, Gerhard, F., Berlin.Google Scholar
Rosdolsky, R. 1977. The Making of Marx's “Capital,” Pluto, London.Google Scholar
Rubel, M. 1957. “Les Cahiers de Lecture de Karl Marx. I. 1840–1853,” International Review of Social History, 2, 392–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubel, M. 1960. “Les Cahiers de Lecture de Karl Marx. II. 1853–1856,” International Review of Social History, 5, 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubel, M. and Manale, M.. 1975. Marx Without Myth, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1954. A History of Economic Analysis, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Sweezy, P. M. 1942. Theory of Capitalist Development, Monthly Review Press, New York, 1971.Google Scholar
Thompson, N. 1984. The People's Science. The Popular Political Economy of Exploitation and Crisis 1816–34, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar