Samuelson and the 93% Scarcity Theory of Value

Avi Cohen

Chapter 5 in The Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations, 1993, pp 149-172 from Palgrave Macmillan

Abstract: Abstract In ‘Ricardo and the 93% Labor Theory of Value’, Stigler (1958) demonstrates that Ricardo’s labour theory of value cannot be defended as an analytical proposition but can be defended as an empirical proposition. Here, Stigler’s criteria for analytical and empirical value theories are used to evaluate the Cambridge capital theory controversies, particularly Samuelson’s contribution. The evaluation demonstrates that the neoclassical scarcity theory of value — the conception of price as an index of resource scarcity relative to consumption demand — cannot be defended analytically but can be defended empirically. The analytical deficiencies in both theories of value stem from capital-related problems. For neoclassical theory, which is the focus of this paper, these problems are not eliminated at the general equilibrium level. Instead, the problems are sidestepped by abandoning the scarcity theory of value as an analytical proposition.

Keywords: General Equilibrium; Relative Price; General Equilibrium Model; Relative Prex; Relative Scarcity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1993
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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:pal:palchp:978-1-349-22728-0_6

Ordering information: This item can be ordered from
http://www.palgrave.com/9781349227280

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-22728-0_6

Access Statistics for this chapter

More chapters in Palgrave Macmillan Books from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().