Adam Smith's Theory of Value and Distribution: A Reappraisal

Caravale, Giovanni; O’Donnell, Rory

doi:10.2307/1060248

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Now, when considered from the perspective of his attempted rational reconstruction of Smith as a Sraf an "surplus" theorist, this allegation must strike the reader as, at best, a troubling contradiction . As Caravale (1992Caravale ( , p. 1124) has observed, how are we to know that the "given" rate of pro t is consistent with the magnitude of the residual surplus? 8 Even these troubling assumptions are not quite enough, but we are offered nothing to support the remaining (implied) presumption of a constant price of materials (c).…”

Section: Chapter 5: a "Pre-capitalist" Economy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As one of his reviewers observed, this quali cation is particularly hard to credit since it "attributes to Smith the almost unbelievable incapability to calculate a ratio (whose nature was perfectly clear in his mind) between two aggregates [the 'surplus' and the wage bill] that, according to O'Donnell, he had already calculated with precision"(Caravale 1992(Caravale , p. 1124.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Labor “Embodied” In Smith's Labor-Commanded Measure: A “Rationally Reconstructed” Legend

Hueckel

2000

J Hist Econ Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly a half-century has passed since Ronald Meek (1956, p. 63) warned us that Adam Smith's notion of the labor commanded by a commodity in the marketplace is to be understood not as an expression of the “substance” of value, varying “directly with the quantity of social labor used to produce” the object, but rather as nothing more than a unit of value measure with no fixed relationship to the labor “embodied” in production. It was this distinction that he sought to fix in our minds with his memorable image of the magnet. Indeed, it is more than three times as long since John Stuart Mill (1848, p. 568) conveyed the same distinction with his particularly apt metaphor of “the thermometer and the fire.” Further, it is now forty years since Mark Blaug (1959), reminding us of that distinction, returned our attention to Smith's use of his measure as an expression of potential productive capacity (a view advanced earlier yet by Hla Myint 1948, pp. 20–21 and by Meek 1956, p. 65), but one that conveys a subjective dimension as well. Yet in spite of a now widespread concurrence in this reading, the “legend” that Smith's concept of labor commanded is to be understood as expressing, in some way, price ratios proportional to ratios of labor embodied in production remains remarkably resilient.

show abstract

Section: Chapter 5: a "Pre-capitalist" Economy?mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%