IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jhisec/v40y2018i04p445-470_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

€˜Value Is Not A Fact’: Reproduction Cost And The Transition From Classical To Neoclassical Regulation In Gilded Age America

Author

Listed:
  • Giocoli, Nicola

Abstract

The paper draws on Stephen Siegel (1984) to argue that, while paving the way for constitutionalizing the free market in Lochner v. New York (1905), the reproduction cost method that the Supreme Court established in Smyth v. Ames (1898) as the preferred technique for assessing the value of a business for regulatory purposes also exposed the conventional character of any valuation exercise, against the claims of objectivity made by classical economists and mainstream jurists. The inconsistency between recognizing that “value is not a fact†and the classical laissez-faire philosophy underlying the Court’s jurisprudence did not escape progressive critics, who concluded that government could legitimately fine-tune regulation in order to affect a business’s value and pursue alternative socio-economic goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Giocoli, Nicola, 2018. "€˜Value Is Not A Fact’: Reproduction Cost And The Transition From Classical To Neoclassical Regulation In Gilded Age America," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(4), pages 445-470, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jhisec:v:40:y:2018:i:04:p:445-470_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1053837217000414/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:jhisec:v:40:y:2018:i:04:p:445-470_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/het .

    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.