Marginal Productivity Theory

Author(s):  
David Ellerman
2012 ◽  
pp. 125-140
Author(s):  
Heinz D. Kurz

The paper provides a critical assessment of Adolphe Landry's contributions to the theory of capital and interest. His analysis represents one among several variants of marginal productivity theory. The distinguishing feature of his variant is that he considers entrepreneurship a scarce factor of production alongside with the usual factors labour, land and capital. He thus tries to put entrepreneurship - the innovative agens, as Schumpeter saw it - into the Procrustean bed of marginalist theory. It is not clear whether Landry's combination of various ideas to be found in the contemporary literature generates a coherent whole, because his argument is often suggestive and vague and lacks analytical rigour.


2012 ◽  
pp. 97-124
Author(s):  
Anastassios D. Karayiannis ◽  
Ioannis A. Katselidis

The introduction of new technology may have significant effects on the level of employment and the real wage rate; effects that have received considerable attention even from the economic thinkers of the classical period. This paper aims to analyze and evaluate the various views and arguments of early classical and neoclassical economists concerning the technological effects on wages and employment. On the one hand, the economists of the early decades of the 19th century (mainly between 1800 and 1840) had recognized and analyzed many of the effects of technology on labourers' welfare. On the other hand, early neoclassical theorists of the period between 1890 and 1935 tried to expand on the classical views and to develop their own theoretical arguments, based on new perceptions like the marginal productivity theory. The main conclusion drawn is that most of early classical and neoclassical economists recognized and specified the temporary adverse effects of new technology on labour (e.g. short-run unemployment), but, at the same time, they argued for the beneficial long-run consequences of technological progress on labourers' welfare.


1960 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 210 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. C. Archibald

2000 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger J. Sandilands

A central message of Allyn Abbott Young's (1928) seminal paper on increasing returns and economic progress was the seeming tautology that “the division of labor depends in large part upon the division of labor.” From this he deduced that a major source of growth is growth itself. In this fundamental sense growth is endogenous and cumulative. He spoke of the “togetherness” of economic phenomena and doubted that the apparatus of supply and demand and marginal productivity theory could be integrated to give the social picture or explain why growth tends to be self-sustaining rather than self-exhausting.


1994 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Henry

The standard view on John Bates Clark is that his The Philosophy of Wealth (hereafter Philosophy) written in 1886, was simply a reproduction of articles originally appearing in The New Englander (hereafter TNE), the journal that eventually evolved into The Yale Review. This view also holds that Philosophy represents Clark's so-called (Christian) socialist period that he abandoned sometime after 1886, and that he then began the process of development that resulted in his marginal productivity theory of distribution and a more generally conservative or precapitalist position.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document