Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-5q6g5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T00:33:36.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Professor Arrow's Ricardo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

L. E. Johnson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Professor Kenneth Arrow has now added his views to the current Ricardian controversy in a provocative survey of alternative judgments regarding David Ricardo's contribution (Arrow 1991). Arrow's primary thesis appears to be that “the main thrust of Ricardo's system is a bold attempt to determine values independent of demand considerations” (Arrow 1991, p. 75), a position which has already come under attack (Caravale 1991; Hollander 1991). Our aim, however, is not to examine Ricardo's treatment of demand directly, but to question the fundamental suppositions upon which Arrow's analysis rests and the resulting conclusion that emerges.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Spring 1993 , pp. 54 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arrow, Kenneth J. 1991. “Ricardo's Work As Viewed By Later Economists,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Harold J. and Chandler, Morse. 1963. Scarcity and Growth, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1966. Economic Theory in Retrospect, Richard D., Irwin, Homewood.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1985. “What Ricardo Said and What Ricardo Meant,” in The Legacy of Ricardo, edited by Giovanni, A. Caravale, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 3–10.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1990. “On the Historiography of Economics,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12, no. 1, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannan, E. 1929. A Review of Economic Theory, P. S., King, London.Google Scholar
Caravale, Giovanni A. 1985. “Diminishing Returns and Accumulation in Ricardo,” The Legacy of Ricardo, edited by Giovanni, A. Caravale, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 127–88.Google Scholar
Caravale, Giovanni A. 1988. “The Notion of Natural Wage and Its Role In Classical Economics,” Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, 35, no. 7, 599–624.Google Scholar
Caravale, Giovanni A. 1989. “Marx's Interpretation of Ricardo: A Note,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 17, no. 6, 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caravale, Giovanni A. 1991. “Marx's views on Ricardo—A Critical Evaluation,” Marx and Modern Economic Analysis, edited by Caravale, G. A., 2, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Caravale, Giovanni A. 1991. “On the Role of Demand in Ricardo and Marshall,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, no. 2, 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caravale, Giovanni A., and Domeneco, A. Tosato. 1980. Ricardo and the Theory of Value, Distribution, and Growth, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Cassels, John M. 1935. “A Re-interpretation of Ricardo on Value,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 49, 518–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garegnani, Pierangelo. 1985. “The ‘New View’ of the Ricardian Theory of Distribution and Growth,” The Legacy of Ricardo, edited by Giovanni, A. Caravale, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hollander, Jacob H. 1904. “The Development of Ricardo's Theory of Value,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 18, 455–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, Samual. 1985. “On the Substantive Identity of the Ricardian and Neoclassical Conceptions of Economic Organization: The French Connection in British Classicism,” in The Legacy of Ricardo, edited by Giovanni, A. Caravale, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 13–44.Google Scholar
Hollander, Samual. 1991. “On the Endogeneity of the Margin and Related Issues in Ricardian Economic,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, no. 2, 159–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. E. 1983. “Economic Paradigms: A Missing Dimension,” Journal of Economic Issues, 17, no. 4, 1097–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. E.. 1984. “Ricardo's Labor Theory of the Determinant of Value,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 12, no. 1, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. E.. 1988. “The Legacy of Ricardo: A Review Article,” Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Economiche e Commerciali, 35, no. 8, 781–96.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. E.. 1984. “Ricardo's Labor Theory of the Determinant of Value,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 12, no. 1, 50–59; reprinted in Pioneers in Economics, 2, edited by Mark, Blaug, Edward, Elgar, London, 1991, 22–31.Google Scholar
Johnson, L. E.. 1992. “The Source of Value and Ricardo: An Historical Reconstruction,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 20, no. 4, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, L. E. and Robert, D. Ley. 1988. Origins of Modern Economics: A Paradigmatic Approach, Ginn Press, Needham Heights.Google Scholar
Ricardo, David. 1951–1973. The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, edited by Piero, Sraffa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. 1984. “The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres,” Philosophy in History, edited by Rorty, , Schneewind, J. B., and Skinner, Q., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1963. History of Economic Analysis, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1958. “Ricardo and the 93% Labor Theory of Value,” American Economic Review, 48, no. 3, 357–67.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J.. 1965. “Textual Exegesis as a Scientific Problem,” Economica, 32, no. 128, 447–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, George J.. 1976. “The Scientific Uses of Scientific Biography, with Special Reference to J. S. Mill,” James and John Stuart Mill: Papers of the Centenary Conference, edited by Robson, J. M. and Laine, M., Toronto University Press, Toronto.Google Scholar