Revisiting Land, Labor, and Capital in Neoclassical Economics

Antoine Missemer and Antonin Pottier

Land Economics, 2025, vol. 101, issue 4, 566-584

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.

JEL-codes: B13 Q24 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
Note: DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://le.uwpress.org/cgi/reprint/101/4/566
A subscription is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.

Related works:
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:uwp:landec:v:101:y:2025:i:4:p:566-584

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Land Economics from University of Wisconsin Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().