Marx's Theory of Ground Rent: A Critical Assessment

This critical essay provides the reader with an up-to-date assessmentof Marx's relatively neglected theory of absolute ground rentby bringing together in a coherent manner his scattered observationsand arguments contained primarily in Capital, Vol. III and Theoriesof Surplus Value, Vol. II. It also reviews the extant secondaryliterature which suggests that within Marx's theory of rentis an embryonic theory of monopoly from which scholars can drawimportant insights into the history of economic thought andthe workings of mature capitalism. The paper is organized asfollows. After an introductory section, Section II providesthe reader with an overview of Marx's theory of differentialrent and compares it to that of Ricardo, particularly Marx'sdiscussion of differential rent II and whether nature is productiveof exchange value. Section III discusses Marx's theory of absoluterent in light of recent criticisms by prominent scholars andsuggests that what determines whether rent is paid on the marginalland is not technical backwardness or lower productivity oflabor per se, but a social relation, viz., the monopoly createdby the private ownership of land. The last section summarizesthe main arguments and suggests some avenues for future research.     

Innovation and social probable knowledge

In this paper, some elements of Keynes's theory of probabilityare used to understand the process of diffusion of an innovation.Based on work done elsewhere, it is argued that this processcan be viewed as a process of dealing with the collective uncertaintyabout how to sort out a technological problem. Expanding theconcepts of weight of argument and probable knowledge to dealwith this kind of uncertainty, we argue that the concepts ofsocial weight of argument and social probable knowledge canbe very helpful in understanding the process of diffusion ofan innovation.     

Stochastically independent randomization and uncertainty aversion

Summary.   This paper proposes a preference-based condition for stochastic independence of a randomizing device in a product state space. This condition is applied to investigate some classes of preferences that allow for both independent randomization and uncertainty or ambiguity aversion (a la Ellsberg). For example, when imposed on Choquet Expected Utility (CEU) preferences in a Savage framework displaying uncertainty aversion in the spirit of Schmeidler [27], it results in a collapse to Expected Utility (EU). This shows that CEU preferences that are uncertainty averse in the sense of Schmeidler should not be used in settings where independent randomization is to be allowed. In contrast, Maxmin EU with multiple priors preferences continue to allow for a very wide variety of uncertainty averse preferences when stochastic independence is imposed. Additionally, these points are used to reexamine some recent arguments against preference for randomization with uncertainty averse preferences. In particular, these arguments are shown to rely on preferences that do not treat randomization as a stochastically independent event. Received: February 10, 2000; revised version: March 30, 2000     

The Dahrendorf hypothesis and its implications for (the theory of) economic policy-making

The sociologist R. Dahrendorf has recently suggested that thereis no and there ought to be no convergence of economic policiestowards some common ideal model. On the contrary, he statesthat ‘diversity is [...] at the very heart of a worldthat has abandoned the need for closed, encompassing systems’.It is shown in this paper that the Dahrendorf hypothesis isdifficult to reconcile with orthodox economic approaches toeconomic policy-making. A perspective on policy-making thatintroduces either fundamental uncertainty or endogenous policypreferences or both is, however, shown to be consistent withthe Dahrendorf hypothesis.     

Effective regulation versus tacit collusion in the long-distance market: an empirical analysis

Regulatory decisions often must be made in an atmosphere of uncertainty, and arguments presented by the affected parties frequently add to, rather than resolve, that uncertainty. Here, we examine several of the deregulatory decisions affecting the long-distance market that were rendered by the FCC over the two-decade period following the divestiture of AT&T. Our purpose is to provide empirical evidence relevant to some of the arguments regarding market conditions that were presented during that period. Findings suggest that some of the more prominent allegations are not supported by the data.      

Justifying precautionary policies: Incommensurability and uncertainty

When decisions are taken in conditions of Keynesian or Knightian uncertainty, and when there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, the Precautionary Principle is often recommended to guide decision-making. However, the Precautionary Principle has been widely criticised. In response to these criticisms, a qualitative version of the Precautionary Principle is developed which draws its normative content from a blend of formal decision theory and political philosophy. It is argued that precautionary action can be justified by some flexible combination of uncertainty and incommensurability. The ‘greater’ the uncertainty, the ‘less’ incommensurability is required to justify precautionary action, and vice versa. Throughout the paper, the arguments are explored using the example of climate change decision problems.     

Roy Cordato's “Austrian” Critique of Coase on Social Cost

In his book on Austrian welfare economics, Roy Cordato presents a scathing criticism of the Coasean approach to making judgments in tort cases. His criticism claims that the Coasean approach is both unrealistic and normative. Moreover, it would introduce uncertainty, thereby reducing individuals' freedom in pursuing their goals through the exchange process. To avoid all of these problems or at least to better deal with them, the economist who is interested in giving advice to judges ought to advocate a rule of strict liability regarding invasions of real (i.e., material) property. He claims that this rule is derived from Austrian economics.This paper, which takes a different Austrian perspective, makes several arguments against Cordato. First, it argues that his recommended rule would not achieve the goal that he sets for it. It would increase the freedom of some people while reducing the freedom of others in pursuing their goals. Second, it argues that his criticism of Coase is misplaced. Contrary to Cordato's claim, Coase has not advocated day-to-day interventions in the market system based on benefit-cost calculations that assume general competitive equilibrium. On the contrary, like the Austrians, he has emphasized the difficult knowledge and calculation problems associated with this. Also, he has pointed out the preponderance of empirical evidence against such interventions. Moreover, Coase's recommendations do not concern day-to-day interventions at all. Rather, he has been concerned with the institutional structure, most especially with the initial delimitation of rights. This concern, which implicitly takes account of uncertainty, immunizes Coase's analysis from Cordato's uncertainty critique.     

Lessons of the 1999 Abolition of Intra-EU Duty Free Sales for the New EU Member States

The abolition of intra-EU duty free was critically discussedand accompanied by a vigorous and well-financed lobbying campaignby the duty free industry. The opponents of this resolutionargued that such a tax-free sales sector created jobs and hardlyreduced the value added and excise tax revenue of individualcountries. In their opinion, the duty free trade not only contributedto the reduction of the travel fare but also could be characterisedas a supplement to the normal retail trade for some products.The challenges for some specific industries led by the abolitionof duty free shopping appear to be considerable in the short-term.However, theoretical and empirical examinations made in thisstudy suggest: (a) intra-EU duty free shopping disturbs theallocation neutrality guaranteed in the single market, (b) macroeconomicsignificance of duty free shopping is rather negligible, and(c) some background studies made for the lobbyists exaggeratethe negative impacts of eliminating intra-EU duty free shopping.These three important arguments, which can also be applied tothe new EU Member States, justify the abolition of intra-EUduty free shopping. (JEL F10; F15; F18; E62; P20)     

Hicks on monetary theory and history: money as endogenous money

Hicks was never tired of saying that monetary theory is in history.What he meant was that monetary theory is intrinsically relatedto real events, and more importantly that monetary issues needto be analysed in a dynamic sequential context in which timeplays an essential part. He went on developing a particularsequential analysis: the study of what happens within a singleperiod (‘single-period theory’) and the study ofthe linkages between a succession of those periods (‘continuationtheory’). It is suggested that this distinction providesa useful lesson for modern endogenous money theorists.     

Adam Smith and the division of labour: is there a difference between organisation and market?

The paper claims that, in The Wealth of Nations, the divisionof labour refers simultaneously to two different things: a socialdivision of labour and an organisational division of labour.The central point is that the organisation of work (the organisationaldivision of labour) in the firm is the logical counterpart ofthe social division of labour, and that these reflect two inseparableaspects of the process of the division of labour. Smith is thusconcerned with organisations as well as with markets, each functioningaccording to the same principle. Hence, Smith does not believethat the organisational and the social divisions of labour arefundamentally different, although he does recognise some variationbetween them and describes different states of the divisionof labour within the firm, liberal and capitalist.     

A materialist development of some recent contributions to the labour theory of value

The paper offers a novel interpretation and affirmation of theopening arguments of Capital, answering the fundamental butneglected question of why labour is the substance of value.Marx's arguments require that two philosophical threads, oftenseparated in the literature on value, be woven together. Theargument that value is the intrinsic ‘content’ makingcommodities exchangeable employs the thread of realism. Theargument that abstract labour is the emergent ‘socialsubstance’ of value employs the thread of dialectics.This interpretation develops the materialist and dialecticalphilosophy of E.V. Ilyenkov and deepens the approach to valuetheory initiated by Ben Fine.     

Still unanswered quibbles with fractional reserve free banking

Anthony Evans and Steven Horwitz readily admit that their own understanding of monetary theory is imperfect, and do not even “attempt a rebuttal of [our] claims.” George Selgin accepts that some of the arguments we put forward in Bagus and Howden (2010) make for “interesting theory”. He fails to rebuff our claim that precautionary reserves are unable to constrain credit creation in a fractional reserve free banking system. While calling for us to provide historical evidence to validate the quibbles we put forward, Selgin himself overstates the evidence. He also claims that we have distorted what he has written, and that we use incorrect monetary theory. These allegations are false.     

The stock market and investment: another look at the micro-foundations of q theory

This paper introduces a novel distinction between real q andfinancial q. The paper examines three versions of financialq developed by Brainard and Tobin, Minsky and Hayashi, respectively.These theories differ regarding the nature of stock market pricedetermination and their use of marginal productivity theory.It is shown that non-profit maximising behaviour by managersdoes not invalidate q theory. It is also shown that if managersand shareholders have different profit expectations, this leadsto an equilibrium value of q that differs from unity. Lastly,the implicit claims in q theory regarding the efficient roleof stock markets as regulators of capital accumulation are shownto depend on assumptions about stockholder behaviour.     

A history of post-Keynesian economics

John King, in his A History of Post Keynesian Economics Since1936, raises the question of whether there exists a body ofwork which can be called, collectively, post Keynesian. Thispaper presents some criteria for addressing this question, beginningwith the vision and the origins of some of the post-Keynesianideas, leading to an examination of certain features of thevarious groups, including their methodology and their approachesto uncertainty, their pricing theories and their growth theories.It is concluded that, although there is much diversity in thevarious groups, they are reconcilable when seen as referringto different aspects of the economic process and at differinglevels of abstraction.     

Foucault on the Marginal Revolution in Economics: Language and the Cartesian Legacy

Scholars have long debated the ‘revolutionary’ character of the ‘Marginal Revolution’ in economics, focusing on theoretical foundations, methodological devices, social context and political aspects. This article offers a new perspective by investigating ontological and epistemological conditions of that intellectual movement. This requires, in turn, a characterization of those conditions, for which purpose we will draw on Foucault's configurations of thought into ‘epistemes’ in The Order of Things. Although not mentioning those conditions, there have been few references in economics to Foucault's approach. They have mainly claimed that he neglected its importance because he did not see it as a ‘revolution’ in The Order of Things. It is argued here that he actually considered it a ‘revolution’ in The Archaeology of Knowledge. A revision of Foucault's account provides some ideas regarding deep philosophical conditions of the emergence of neoclassical theory and defies some usual interpretations of the circumstances that led to the mathematization of economics. The main conclusion is that its revolutionary character did not stem from a change of ontological beliefs, but—just as many historians of economics have defended—it was a methodological revolution. This study suggests a reinterpretation of that event, claiming that it resulted from a new conception of language and a crisis of Descartes's project of a mathematical unifying science. Going beyond that debate, these reflections proffer ideas that deserve an appraisal in economics.