Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:18:01.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘VALUE IS NOT A FACT’: REPRODUCTION COST AND THE TRANSITION FROM CLASSICAL TO NEOCLASSICAL REGULATION IN GILDED AGE AMERICA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2018

Nicola Giocoli
Nicola Giocoli*
Affiliation:
Department of Law, University of Pisa.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper draws on Stephen Siegel (1984) to argue that, while paving the way for constitutionalizing the free market in Lochner v. New York (1905), the reproduction cost method that the Supreme Court established in Smyth v. Ames (1898) as the preferred technique for assessing the value of a business for regulatory purposes also exposed the conventional character of any valuation exercise, against the claims of objectivity made by classical economists and mainstream jurists. The inconsistency between recognizing that “value is not a fact” and the classical laissez-faire philosophy underlying the Court’s jurisprudence did not escape progressive critics, who concluded that government could legitimately fine-tune regulation in order to affect a business’s value and pursue alternative socio-economic goals.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 445 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

Without involving them in any remaining mistakes, I thank Elodie Bertrand, Simon Cook, Luca Fiorito, Tim Leonard, and two anonymous referees for their useful comments. This research has benefitted from the financial support of INET—Institute for New Economic Thinking (grant #INO1200015-033).

References

REFERENCES

Bailly, Edward C. 1911. “The Legal Basis of Rate Regulation. Fair Return on the Value Employed for the Public Service.” Columbia Law Review 11 (6): 532–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, John. 1916. “Bases of Valuation in the Control of Return on Public Utility Investments.” American Economic Review 6 (3): 568–588.Google Scholar
Baumol, William J., and Bradford, David F.. 1970. “Optimal Departures from Marginal Cost Pricing.” American Economic Review 60 (3): 265–283.Google Scholar
Bernstein, David E. 2011. Rehabilitating Lochner. Defending Individual Rights against Progressive Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1985. Economic Theory in Retrospect. Fourth edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boer, Germain. 1966. “Replacement Cost: A Historical Look.” The Accounting Review 41 (1): 92–97.Google Scholar
Carey, Henry C. 1837–1840. Principles of Political Economy . Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard.Google Scholar
Commons, John R. 1924. Legal Foundations of Capitalism . New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cross, Melvin, and Ekelund, Robert B. Jr. 1980. “A. T. Hadley on Monopoly Theory and Railway Regulation: An American Contribution to Economic Analysis and Policy.” History of Political Economy 12 (2): 214–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, John P. 1886. “The Union Pacific Railway.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 8 (September): 47–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duxbury, Neil. 1995. Patterns of American Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Ekelund, Robert B. Jr. 1970. “Price Discrimination and Product Differentiation in Economic Theory: An Early Analysis.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (2): 268–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Francesco. 1856. “Prefazione a Ricardo.” In Biblioteca dell’Economista—Prima Serie. Volume XI. Torino: Pomba, pp. v–lxxvii.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1907. The Rate of Interest. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ford, Frank R. 1911. “Valuation of Intangible Street Railway Property.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 37 (1): 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giocoli, Nicola. 2014. Predatory Pricing in Antitrust Law and Economics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giocoli, Nicola. 2016. “When Law and Economics Was a Dangerous Subject: The Controversy over Railroad Regulation before the Hepburn Act.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 34A: 293–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giocoli, Nicola. 2017. “The (Rail)Road to Lochner: Reproduction Cost and the Gilded Age Controversy over Rate Regulation.” History of Political Economy 49 (1): 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haakonssen, Knud. 1981. The Science of a Legislator. The Natural Jurisprudence of David Hume and Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, Arthur T. 1885. Railroad Transportation. Its History and Its Laws. New York: Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
Hadley, Arthur T. 1886. “How Far Have Modern Improvements in Production and Transportation Changed the Principle That Men Should Be Left Free to Make Their Own Bargains? I.” Science 7 (161): 221–225.Google Scholar
Hadley, Arthur T. 1928. “The Meaning of Valuation.” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 18 (1): 173–180.Google Scholar
Hale, Robert L. 1922. “Rate Making and the Revision of the Property Concept.” Columbia Law Review 22 (3): 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Gerard C. 1920. “Railway Valuation and the Courts.” Harvard Law Review 33 (7–8): 902–928 (part I); 1031–1057 (part II).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Oliver W. 1894. “Privilege, Malice, and Intent.” Harvard Law Review 8 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, Morton J. 1992. The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960. The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kens, Paul. 1998. Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial . Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Leonard, Thomas C. 2015. “Progressive Era Origins of the Regulatory State.” History of Political Economy 47 (Annual Supplement: Market Failures in Context, edited by Marciano, Alain and Medema, Steven G.): 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, Thomas C. 2016. Illiberal Reformers. Race, Eugenics & American Economics in the Progressive Era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Perelman, Michael. 2006. Railroading Economics. The Creation of the Free Market Mythology. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Poinsot, Philippe. 2016. “Jules Dupuit and the Railroads: What Is the Role of the State?” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 38 (2): 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollins, Harold. 1956. “Aspects of Railway Accounting Before 1868.” In Littleton, Ananias C. and Yamey, Basil S., eds., Studies in the History of Accounting. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, pp. 332–355.Google Scholar
Rae, John. 1834. Statement of Some New Principles on the Subject of Political Economy. Boston: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.Google Scholar
Ripley, William Z. 1915. Railroads Finance & Organization . New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1954] 1986. History of Economic Analysis . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siegel, Stephen A. 1984. “Understanding the Lochner Era: Lessons from the Controversy over Railroad and Utility Rate Regulation.” Virginia Law Review 70 (2): 187–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, Stephen A. 1986–87. “Understanding the Nineteenth Century Contract Clause: The Role of the Property-Privilege Distinction and ‘Takings’ Clause Jurisprudence.” Southern California Law Review 60 (1): 1–108.Google Scholar
Smalley, Harrison S. 1906. “Railroad Rate Control in Its Legal Aspects: A Study of the Effect of Judicial Decisions Upon Public Regulation of Railroad Rates.” Publications of the American Economic Association (Third Series) 7 (2): 4–147.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1904. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Smith, Oberlin. 1886. “Inventory Evaluation of Machinery Plant.” In Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Volume VII. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp. 433–439.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1957. “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated.” Journal of Political Economy 65 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taussig, Frank W. 1891. “A Contribution to the Theory of Railway Rates.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 5 (4): 438–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viscusi, W. Kip, Harrington, Joseph E., and Vernon, John M.. 2005. Economics of Regulation and Antitrust. Fourth edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wellington, Arthur M. 1887. The Economic Theory of the Location of Railways. New York: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Whitten, Robert H. 1912. Valuation of Public Service Corporations . New York: Banks Law Publishing.Google Scholar
Whitten, Robert H. 1914. “Fair Value for Rate Purposes.” Harvard Law Review 27 (5): 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Jeffrey T. 2005. “Unintended Order and Intervention: Adam Smith’s Theory of the Role of the State.” History of Political Economy 37 (Annual Supplement: The Role of Government in the History of Economic Thought, edited by Medema, Steven G. and Boettke, Peter J.): 91–119.Google Scholar