Revisiting Land, Labor, and Capital in Neoclassical Economics

Antoine Missemer and Antonin Pottier

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: It is usually argued that the advent of neoclassical economics led to the consideration of only two factors of production (capital and labor) instead of three (capital, labor, and land). From the 1880s to the 1920s, land and natural resources would have been marginalized and left to applied fields such as land economics. This article revisits this episode. Theoretically, it shows that there was no requirement in marginal productivity theories to subsume land into capital. Historically, it demonstrates that alternatives did exist within U.S. neoclassicism to the neglect of land and natural resources, providing inspiration for today's research

Date: 2025
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-his
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://enpc.hal.science/hal-05317155v1
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Land Economics, 2025, 101 (4), pp.566-584. ⟨10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009⟩

Downloads: (external link)
https://enpc.hal.science/hal-05317155v1/document (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Revisiting Land, Labor, and Capital in Neoclassical Economics (2025)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05317155

DOI: 10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().