Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:31:23.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modernizing Böhm-Bawerk's Theory of Interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Robert Dorfman
Robert Dorfman*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Harvard University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1690, John Locke proclaimed, “Whatsoever [anyone]; removes out of the State that Nature hath provided … hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property.” Ever since this dictum was pronounced philosophers, economists, and, especially, capital theorists have been embarrassed by the virtually universal disregard of it in practice. At the very inception of economic theorizing, Ricardo declared that explaining the division of the national income into wages, rents, and interest was “the principal problem in Political Economy.” He proposed an ingenious explanation, but was far from settling the matter. Some fifty years later, Marx, building on Ricardo's concept of value, brought the debate to a sharp focus; after him, it became largely an argument between Marxists and everyone else. Put starkly, Marx defined the value of any good or service to be the amount of labor required to produce it. Since a worker and his family can be supported for a year by the product of a good deal less than a full year's labor, this definition implies a gap between the value of a year's labor and the value of its products. Owners of land and capital are only too glad to close the gap by claiming the “surplus value.” Marx's diagnosis of the nature and origin of surplus value became the focus of discussions of the distribution of income for most of the following century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 37 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, K. J. and Hahn, F. H.. 1971. General Competitive Analysis. San Francisco: Holden-Day, Inc. Google Scholar
Blyth, Conrad A. 1956. “The Theory of Capital and its Time Measure.” Econometrica 24: 467–78.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1959. Capital and Interest, 4th Edition: Vol. I History and Critique of Interest Theories (1884); Vol. II Positive Theory of Capital (1888); Vol. III Further Essays on Capital and Interest (1909–1912), translated by G. D. Huncke and H. F. Sennholz South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
Burmeister, Edwin. 1976. “Real Wicksell Effects and Regular Economies.” In Brown, Murray, Sato, K., and Zarembka, P., eds., Essays in Modern Capital Theory. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North-Holland Publishing Co. Google Scholar
Clark, J. B. 1893. “The Genesis of Capital.” Yale Review 2: 302–15.Google Scholar
Clark, J. B. 1895. “The Origin of Interest.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9: 257–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. S. and Heal, G. M.. 1979. Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Robert. 1959. “Waiting and the Period of Production.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 73: 367–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorfman, Robert. 1995 “Austrian and American Capital Theories: A Contrast of Cultures.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 17: 21–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1907. The Rate of Interest. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1934. “On the Relationship Between Investment and Output.” Economic Journal 44: 207–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1939. Value and Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hong, Keehyun. 1987. “Some Analytical Aspects of the Austrian Capital Theory in 1884–1940.” Cambridge: Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Economics, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. 1925. “A General Mathematical Theory of Depreciation.” Journal of the American Statistical Association. 20: 340–53. Also, Hotelling, Harold. 1925. “A General Mathematical Theory of Depreciation.”, The Collected Economic Articles of Harold Hotelling, pp. 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotelling, Harold. 1931. “The Economics of Exhaustible Resources.” Journal of Political Economy 39: 137–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jevons, W. Stanley. 1871. The Theory of Political Economy, 5th edition. New York: Kelley & Millman, 1957.Google Scholar
Jorgenson, Dale W. 1996. Investment, Capital Theory and Investment Behavior, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank H. 1933. “Capitalistic Production, Time and the Rate of Return.” In Economic Essays in Honor of Gustav Cassel. London: Geo. Allen and Unwin, pp. 327–42.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank H. 1935. “The Theory of Investment Once More.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 50: 36–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindahl, Erik. 1939. Studies in the Theory of Money and Capital. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1690. Second Treatise of Government, par. 27.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Menger, Carl. 1871. Principles of Economics, translated by Dingwall, J. and Hoselitz, B. F. New York: New York University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Pontryagin, L. S. et al., 1962. The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes. New York: Interscience Google Scholar
Rae, John. 1834. Statement of Some New Principles on the Subject of Political Economy … Published as R. Warren James, John Rae: Political Economist, vol. II. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Ricardo, David. 1817. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, edited by Sraffa, Piero, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1954. “The Production Function and Theory of Capital.” Review of Economic Studies 21: 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Senior, Nassau William. 1836. An Outline of the Science of Political Economy, 6th edition. London: Charles Griffin & Co., 1872.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature of Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Reprinted, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Sraffa, Piero. 1960. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wicksell, Knut. 1893. Value, Capital, and Rent, translated by Frowein, S. H.. New York: Rinehart & Co., 1954. Reprinted, New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1970.Google Scholar
Wicksell, Knut. 1901. Lectures on Political Economy, Vol. I, translated by Classen, E., London: Geo. Routledge & Sons, 1935.Google Scholar
Wicksell, Knut. 1911. “Böhm-Bawerk's Theory of Capital.” In Knut Wicksell, Selected Papers on Political Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Wicksell, Knut. 1923. “A Mathematical Analysis of Dr. Akerman's Problem.” Ekonomisk Tidskrift, Arg. XXV, pp. 157–580. English translation published as Appendix 2 to English translation of Wicksell, 1901.Google Scholar