Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:00:48.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Endogeneity of the Margin and Related Issues in Ricardian Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Samuel Hollander
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As Kenneth Arrow has pointed out in a recent paper, “David Ricardo was a peaceful man” (Arrow 1991, p. 70). Indeed he was—during his lifetime. I am not so sure he is resting peacefully given the further assertion that his system was “a bold attempt to determine values independent of demand considerations” (ibid., p. 75). Arrow adds, byway of qualification, that he does “not think, as some neo-Ricardians seem to, that there was in any sense an intended repudiation of the demand schedule”; rather Ricardo did not conceive of such a schedule even though “some of [his] analysis can only be made sensible on the basis of such a concept.”

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , Fall 1991 , pp. 159 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Arrow, K. J. 1991. “Ricardo's Works as Viewed by Later Economists,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, Spring, 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, M. 1989. “A Rehabilitation of Classical Economics,” Aoyama Kokusai Seikei Ronshu, 13, 06, 35–41.Google Scholar
Groenewegen, P. 1986. “Porta on Sraffa: A Comment,” History of Political Economy, 18, 455–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J. 1985. “Sraffa and Ricardo: A Critical View,” in Caravale, G., ed., The Legacy of Ricardo, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 305–19.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. and Hollander, S.. 1977. “Mr. Ricardo and the Moderns,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 08, 351–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, S. 1979. The Economics of David Ricardo, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
Hollander, S.. 1989. “On Composition of Demand and Income Distribution in Classical Economics,” History of Economics Society Bulletin, 11, Fall, 216–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, S.. 1991. “Alfred Marshall in Historical Perspective: Why Marshall was right about Ricardo,” European Economic Review, 35, 313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morishima, M. 1989. Ricardo's Economics. A General Equilibrium Theory of Distribution and Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porta, P. L. 1986. “Understanding the Significance of Piero Sraffa's Standard Commodity: A Note on the Marxian Notion of Surplus,” History of Political Economy, 18, 443–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricardo, D. 1951. Works and Correspondence, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A. 1959. “A Modern Treatment of the Ricardian Economy,” Collected Scientific Papers, 1, 373–422, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1966.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A.. 1978. “The Canonical Classical Model of Political Economy,” Journal of Economic Literature, 16, 1415–78.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P.A.. 1991. “Sraffa's Other Leg,” Economic Journal, 101, 05 1991, 570–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viner, J. 1958. The Long View and the Short, Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois.Google Scholar
Walras, L. 1954. Elements of Pure Economics, translated by William Jaffé, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Wicksell, K. 1913. Lectures on Political Economy, edited by L. C. Robbins, Routledge, London, 1934.Google Scholar