Click here to download

Classical Economists, Marx and Marshall on Dominant Technique
Journal Title: HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY 
Author/s: Persefoni Tsaliki, Lefteris Tsoulfidis 
Year:  2015 Issue: Language: Italian 
Pages:  16 Pg. 21-36 FullText PDF:  253 KB
DOI:  10.3280/SPE2015-002002
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


The focal point of this paper is the notion of the dominant technique and its treatment in the theories of value and distribution. Our argument is that neither the average nor the minimum cost production are necessarily identified with the dominant technique in an industry. The dominant technique is in fact approximated with the types of capital, where expansion or contraction of accumulation actually takes place, and in this sense, the dominant is perceived as marginal technique used by firms entering (or leaving), and, therefore, expanding (or contracting) industry’s supply. Such a concept is absolutely consistent with the classical theory of value and is at odds with the neoclassical (not necessarily Marshall’s) theory despite of the adoption of marginal analysis.
Keywords: Dominant technique, market value, representative firm
Jel Code: B10, D40, O30

  1. Aslanbeigui N. and M. Naples (1997). Scissors or Horizon: Neoclassical Debates about Returns to Scale, Costs, and Long-Run Supply (1926-1942). Southern Economic Journal, 64(2): 517-30.
  2. Cournot A. (1927[1838]). Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, translated By Nathaniel T. Bacon, New York: Macmillan.
  3. Garegnani P. (1983). The Classical Theory of Wages and the Role of Demand Schedules in the Determination of Relative Prices. American Economic Review, 73: 309-13.
  4. Marshall A. (1890[1920]). Principles of Economics. London: MacMillan
  5. Marx K. (1867[1977]). Capital, Vol. I. New York: International Publisher.
  6. Marx K. (1894[1977]). Capital, Vol. III. New York: International Publisher.
  7. Mill J.S. (1848[1976]). Principles of Political Economy. Fairfield New Jersey: Augustus M. Kelley.
  8. Moudud J., C. Bina and P. Mason (eds.)(2012). Alternative Theories of Competition: Challenges
  9. to Orthodoxy. Routledge, London. Mueller D.C. (1990). The Dynamics of Company Profits: An International Comparison.
  10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Prendergast R. (1992). Increasing Returns and Competitive Equilibrium. The Content and Development of Marshall’s Theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 16: 447-62.
  12. Ricardo D. (1821[1951]). Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Salter W. (1966). Productivity and Technical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Schohl F. (1999). The Paradoxical Fate of the Representative Firm. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 21: 65-80.
  15. Shaikh, A. (2016) Capitalism: Competition, Conflict, Crises. New York: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).
  16. Smith A. (1776). The Wealth of Nations, New York: The Modern Library.
  17. Stigler G. (1969). The Organization of Industry. Homewood, Ill: Irwin.
  18. Tsoulfidis L. (2010). Competing Schools of Economic Thought. Heidelberg: Springer.
  19. Tsoulfidis L. and Tsaliki P. (2012). Classical Competition and Regulating Capital: Theory and Empirical Evidence. In Moudud, Bina and Mason (eds.)(2012).

Persefoni Tsaliki, Lefteris Tsoulfidis, in "HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY" 2/2015, pp. 21-36, DOI:10.3280/SPE2015-002002

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content