IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/pal/palchp/978-1-349-22728-0_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Samuelson and the 93% Scarcity Theory of Value

In: The Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations

Author

Listed:
  • Avi J. Cohen

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Avi J. Cohen, 1993. "Samuelson and the 93% Scarcity Theory of Value," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Mauro Baranzini & G. C. Harcourt (ed.), The Dynamics of the Wealth of Nations, chapter 5, pages 149-172, Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palchp:978-1-349-22728-0_6
    DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-22728-0_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Avi J. Cohen, 2003. "Retrospectives: Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 199-214, Winter.

    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:pal:palchp:978-1-349-22728-0_6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.com .

    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.