IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rherxx/v74y2019i1p64-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Graslin’s Subjective Theory of Value as Elaborated in His Debate with a ‘Blind Enthusiast’ of Physiocracy in 1767

Author

Listed:
  • Eiko Yamamoto

Abstract

J.-J.-L. Graslin, an ‘anti-economist’, who fundamentally criticized physiocratic doctrine, and N. Baudeau, described as a ‘blind enthusiast’ of Physiocracy, started an open controversy in journals over the value of the processing industry in 1767. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the historical significance of their short-term controversy and Graslin’s far-sighted subjective theory of value confronting Physiocracy. As with other physiocrats, Baudeau insisted on the sterility of industry because it does not produce any net product. Baudeau argued that the value of a processed product was composed of two values: the value of materials and that of food for labour. By contrast, Graslin maintained that the value of labour must be considered separately from the value of food for labour. According to Graslin, labour that processes raw materials generates new value beyond the value of those materials, in the same way that agricultural labour generates value; therefore, the former type of labour is not sterile. The controversy symbolizes a preliminary confrontation between the upcoming cost theory of value and the subsequent subjective theory of value. On the latter, Graslin produces a table similar to Carl Menger’s table of needs satisfaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Eiko Yamamoto, 2019. "Graslin’s Subjective Theory of Value as Elaborated in His Debate with a ‘Blind Enthusiast’ of Physiocracy in 1767," History of Economics Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 74(1), pages 64-80, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:rherxx:v:74:y:2019:i:1:p:64-80
    DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2020.1729501
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/10370196.2020.1729501
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/10370196.2020.1729501?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rherxx:v:74:y:2019:i:1:p:64-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rher .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.