IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v49y2025i3p479-503..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Marshall–Fetter controversy over the ‘old rent concept’

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew McCaffrey

Abstract

Alfred Marshall’s theory of rent was a watershed moment in economics, and his ideas on the subject continue to (positively and negatively) influence economists and social scientists well into the twenty-first century. Far less well known is the scathing critique of Marshall’s theory published by Frank A. Fetter in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 1901. Fetter identified several concepts of rent in Marshall’s work that he attacked as contradictory, arguing that Marshall embraced classical errors while still attempting to emancipate himself from them. Marshall responded by adding a critical note on Fetter to the 5th edition of his Principles (1907), but otherwise showed little public interest in a reply. However, archival evidence reveals that both Marshall and Fetter took this dispute seriously and personally, and that they continued to debate each other at a distance for several decades. This paper brings to light previously unknown archival sources—including unpublished notes, correspondence and manuscripts—to tell the full story of their controversy. Doing so sheds new light on the work of both men and adds in several ways to our understanding of the early history of neoclassical economics, of the development of the theory of rent and of theoretical paths not taken.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew McCaffrey, 2025. "The Marshall–Fetter controversy over the ‘old rent concept’," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 49(3), pages 479-503.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:49:y:2025:i:3:p:479-503.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beae044
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:oup:cambje:v:49:y:2025:i:3:p:479-503.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.