David Ricardo

David Ricardo

Portrait of David Ricardo by Thomas Phillips, circa 1821. This painting shows Ricardo, aged 49, just two years before his death.
Born (1772-04-18)18 April 1772
London, England
Died 11 September 1823(1823-09-11) (aged 51)
Gloucestershire, England
Nationality British
School or
tradition		 Classical economics
Influences Smith · Bentham
Influenced Ricardian Socialists · George · John Stuart Mill · Sraffa · Wicksell · Barro · John Ramsay McCulloch · Karl Marx · Franz Oppenheimer
Contributions Ricardian equivalence, labour theory of value, comparative advantage, law of diminishing returns, Economic rent[1]

David Ricardo (18 April 1772 – 11 September 1823) was a British political economist. He was one of the most influential of the classical economists, along with Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, and James Mill.[2][3]

Personal life

Born in London, England, Ricardo was the third of 17 children of a Sephardic Jewish family of Portuguese origin who had recently relocated from the Dutch Republic.[4] His father, Abraham Ricardo, was a successful stockbroker.[4] He began working with his father at the age of 14. At age 21, Ricardo eloped with a Quaker, Priscilla Anne Wilkinson, and, against his father's wishes, converted to the Unitarian faith.[5] This religious difference resulted in estrangement from his family, and he was led to adopt a position of independence.[6] His father disowned him and his mother apparently never spoke to him again.[7]

Following his estrangement from his father he started a business with the support of Lubbocks and Forster, an eminent banking house. He made the bulk of his fortune as a result of speculation on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo, using methods which today would result in prosecution for insider trading and market manipulation. Prior to the battle, Ricardo posted an observer to convey early results of the outcome. He then deliberately created the mistaken impression the French had won by initially openly selling British securities. A market panic ensued. Following this panic he moved to buy British securities at a steep discount. The Sunday Times reported in Ricardo’s obituary, published on 14 September 1823, that during the Battle of Waterloo Ricardo "netted upwards of a million sterling", a huge sum at the time. Following this trading coup he immediately retired, his position on the floor would have been in any case untenable as a result of his actions. He subsequently purchased Gatcombe Park, an estate in Gloucestershire, now owned by Princess Anne, the Princess Royal and retired to the country. He was appointed High Sheriff of Gloucestershire for 1818–19.[8]

Some years into retirement Ricardo became keen to enter Parliament and in August 1818 he bought Lord Portarlington’s seat in Parliament for £4,000, as part of the terms of a loan of £25,000. As a result, Ricardo entered the House of Commons, representing Portarlington, an Irish rotten borough. He was 47 years of age. His record in Parliament was that of an earnest reformer. He held the seat until his death just four years later.

Ricardo was a close friend of James Mill. Other notable friends included Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Malthus, with whom Ricardo had a considerable debate (in correspondence) over such things as the role of landowners in a society. He also was a member of Malthus' Political Economy Club, and a member of the King of Clubs. He was one of the original members of The Geological Society.[7] His sister was author Sarah Ricardo-Porter (e.g., Conversations in Arithmetic).

Parliamentary record

He voted with opposition in support of the liberal movements in Naples, 21 Feb., and Sicily, 21 June, and for inquiry into the administration of justice in Tobago, 6 June. He divided for repeal of the Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act, 8 May, inquiry into the Peterloo massacre, 16 May, and abolition of the death penalty for forgery, 25 May, 4 June 1821.

He adamantly supported the implementation of free trade. He voted against renewal of the sugar duties, 9 Feb., and objected to the higher duty on East as opposed to West Indian produce, 4 May 1821. He opposed the timber duties. He voted silently for parliamentary reform, 25 Apr., 3 June, and spoke in its favour at the Westminster anniversary reform dinner, 23 May 1822. He again voted for criminal law reform, 4 June.

His friend John Louis Mallett commented: " ... he meets you upon every subject that he has studied with a mind made up, and opinions in the nature of mathematical truths. He spoke of parliamentary reform and ballot as a man who would bring such things about, and destroy the existing system tomorrow, if it were in his power, and without the slightest doubt on the result ... It is this very quality of the man’s mind, his entire disregard of experience and practice, which makes me doubtful of his opinions on political economy."

Death and legacy

Ten years after retiring and four years after entering Parliament Ricardo died from an infection of the middle ear that spread into the brain and induced septicaemia. He was 51.

He had eight children, including three sons, of whom Osman Ricardo (1795–1881; MP for Worcester 1847–1865) and another David Ricardo (1803–1864, MP for Stroud 1832–1833), became Members of Parliament, while the third, Mortimer Ricardo, served as an officer in the Life Guards and was a deputy lieutenant for Oxfordshire.[9]

Ricardo is buried in an ornate grave in the churchyard of Saint Nicholas in Hardenhuish, now a suburb of Chippenham, Wiltshire.[10] The inscription on his grave reads: "A Jew, born in Holland, he was one of the first free traders and a famous Radical in his day." At the time of his death his fortune was estimated at about £600,000.

Ideas

Ricardo became interested in economics after reading Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations in 1799. He wrote his first economics article at age 37. Ricardo's ideas became accepted in England and have become orthodox economic ideas in the modern western world where the government is seen as having a determining role in economic development.

He was also an abolitionist, speaking at a meeting of the Court of the East India Company in March 1823, where he said he regarded slavery as stain on the character of the nation.[11] His sister, Hanna, had married David Samuda (1776-1824) who came from a slave-owning family with a substantial number of slaves in Jamaica.[12]

Value theory

Ricardo's most famous work is his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). It was usually understood that he advanced a labor theory of value in this book. Indeed, in the heading of Chapter 1, section I, we read this sentence:[13]

The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production, and not on the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour.

However, it is now interpreted that Ricardo stated for an easiness of understanding this simple, strong case at the beginning of his theory and his real intention is what is now termed cost of production theory of value. Simplest evidence for this fact is given by Ricardo's note to Section VI which reads as follows[14]

Mr. Malthus appears to think that it is a part of my doctrine, that the cost and value of a thing be the same;---it is, if he means by cost, "cost of production" including profits.

This note clearly contradicts labor theory of value interpretation. See for details of the new interpretation, see Takenaga's paper.[15] Y. Shiozawa shows how this cost of production theory of value can be constructed as a modern theory.[16]

Rent

Main article: Law of rent

Ricardo is responsible for developing theories of rent, wages, and profits. He defined rent as "the difference between the produce obtained by the employment of two equal quantities of capital and labor." Ricardo believed that the process of economic development, which increased land utilization and eventually led to the cultivation of poorer land, principally benefited landowners. According to Ricardo, such premium over "real social value" that is reaped due to ownership constitutes value to an individual but is at best[17] a paper monetary return to "society". The portion of such purely individual benefit, and exclusively that portion, that accrues to scarce resources such as land or gold, over and above any socially beneficial exchange, Ricardo labels "rent".

Ricardo concluded that a tax on land value, equivalent to a tax on the land rent, minus the improvements, was the only form of taxation that would not lead to price increases. Land itself has no cost of production, because it is not produced by humans. Thus, the price is not determined by the cost, but only by the best available rent-free alternative, not by the tax burdens of the person claiming exclusive use.

Malthus's criticism and Extrapolation of the problem of Ricardian Rent

In attempting to demonstrate that Ricardian Rent constitutes value for nothing Ricardo was neglecting Say's Law that all savings by-definition-equals investment. Malthus suggested that rent, however misplaced, constitutes a prime source of savings and investment for the future.

Ricardo's theories of wages and profits

Several authorities consider that Ricardo is the source of the concepts behind the so-called Iron Law of Wages, according to which wages naturally tend to a subsistence level.[18][19][20] Others dispute the assignment to Ricardo of this idea.

In his Theory of Profit, Ricardo stated that as real wages increase, real profits decrease because the revenue from the sale of manufactured goods is split between profits and wages. He said in his Essay on Profits, "Profits depend on high or low wages, wages on the price of necessaries, and the price of necessaries chiefly on the price of food."

Comparative advantage

Between 1500 and 1750 most economists advocated Mercantilism which promoted the idea of international trade for the purpose of gaining bullion by running a trade surplus with other countries. Adam Smith and Ricardo challenged the idea that the purpose of trade was merely to accumulate gold or silver. With "comparative advantage" Ricardo argued in favour of industry specialisation and free trade. He proved, using simple mathematics, that industry specialization combined with free international trade always produces positive results. This insight expanded on the concept of absolute advantage.

Ricardo showed that there is mutual national benefit from trade even if one country is more competitive in every area than its trading counterpart and that a nation should concentrate resources only on industries where it had a comparative advantage,[21] that is in those industries in which it has the greatest competitive edge. Ricardo suggested that national industries which were, in fact, profitable and internationally competitive should be jettisoned in favour of the most competitive industries reference. Ricardo's law of comparative advantage is an application of the principle of the division of labor to international trade. Individuals enrich themselves and their societies by specializing in those endeavors that they perform best. Ricardo's insight was to show that this is also true of groups of people. Although he did not presume here that business decisions are or should be made independently by entrepreneurs on the basis of viability or profit, he knew that merchants engage only if it is profitable for them to do so.[22]

Ricardo proved, using mathematics, that international trade is always beneficial.[23] Paul Samuelson called the numbers used in Ricardo's numerical example dealing with trade between England and Portugal the "four magic numbers".[24] "In spite of the fact that the Portuguese could produce both cloth and wine with less amount of labor, Ricardo suggested that both countries benefit from trade with each other."

The four magic numbers have been interpreted as giving the input labor coefficients for a unit of commodities exchanged. Recently (since 2004 in English speaking world), a new interpretation appeared and changed much the understanding of Ricardo's logic.[25] In the new interpretation, Ricardo explained simply what Jacob Viner named the 18th century rule in the case where all industry of a country are less productive than the other country's.[26]

Criticism

As Joan Robinson subsequently pointed out in reality following an opening of free trade with England, Portugal endured centuries of economic underdevelopment: "the imposition of free trade on Portugal killed off a promising textile industry and left her with a slow-growing export market for wine, while for England, exports of cotton cloth led to accumulation, mechanisation and the whole spiralling growth of the industrial revolution". Robinson argued that Ricardo's example required that economies were in static equilibrium positions with full employment and that there could not be a trade deficit or a trade surplus. These conditions, she wrote, were not relevant to the real world. She also argued that Ricardo's math did not take into account that some countries may be at different levels of development and that this raised the prospect of 'unequal exchange' which might hamper a country's development, as we saw in the case of Portugal.[27]

Protectionism

Like Adam Smith, Ricardo was an opponent of protectionism for national economies, especially for agriculture. He believed that the British "Corn Laws"—tariffs on agricultural products—ensured that less-productive domestic land would be harvested and rents would be driven up (Case & Fair 1999, pp. 812, 813). Thus, profits would be directed toward landlords and away from the emerging industrial capitalists. Since Ricardo believed landlords tended to squander their wealth on luxuries, rather than invest, he believed that the Corn Laws were leading to the stagnation of the British economy.[28] In 1846, his nephew John Lewis Ricardo, MP for Stoke-on-Trent, advocated free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Modern empirical analysis of the Corn Laws yield mixed results.[29] Parliament repealed the Corn Laws in 1846.

Criticism of the Ricardian theory of trade

Ricardo's argument in favour of free trade has been attacked by those who believe trade restriction can be necessary for the economic development of a nation. Utsa Patnaik claims that Ricardian theory of international trade contains a logical fallacy. Ricardo assumed that in both countries two goods are producible and actually are produced, but developed and underdeveloped countries often trade those goods which are not producible in their own country. For example, many Northern countries do not produce tropical fruits. In these cases, one cannot define which country has comparative advantage.[30]

Critics also argue that Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is flawed in that it assumes production is continuous and absolute. In the real world, events outside the realm of human control (e.g. natural disasters) can disrupt production. In this case, specialisation could cripple a country that depends on imports from foreign, naturally disrupted countries. For example, if an industrially based country trades its manufactured goods with an agrarian country in exchange for agricultural products, a natural disaster in the agricultural country (e.g. drought) may cause an industrially based country to starve.

The development economist Ha-Joon Chang challenges the argument that free trade benefits every country:

Ricardo’s theory is absolutely right—within its narrow confines. His theory correctly says that, accepting their current levels of technology as given, it is better for countries to specialize in things that they are relatively better at. One cannot argue with that. His theory fails when a country wants to acquire more advanced technologies—that is, when it wants to develop its economy. It takes time and experience to absorb new technologies, so technologically backward producers need a period of protection from international competition during this period of learning. Such protection is costly, because the country is giving up the chance to import better and cheaper products. However, it is a price that has to be paid if it wants to develop advanced industries. Ricardo’s theory is, thus seen, for those who accept the status quo but not for those who want to change it.[31]

Ricardian equivalence

Another idea associated with Ricardo is Ricardian equivalence, an argument suggesting that in some circumstances a government's choice of how to pay for its spending (i.e., whether to use tax revenue or issue debt and run a deficit) might have no effect on the economy. Ricardo notes that the proposition is theoretically implied in the presence of intertemporal optimisation by rational tax-payers: but that since tax-payers do not act so rationally, the proposition fails to be true in practice. Thus, while the proposition bears his name, he does not seem to have believed it. Economist Robert Barro is responsible for its modern prominence.

His influence and intellectual legacy

David Ricardo's ideas had a tremendous influence on later developments in economics. US economists rank Ricardo as the second most influential economic thinker, behind Adam Smith, prior to the twentieth century.[32]

Ricardo became the theoretical father of classical political economy. However, Schumpeter coined an expression Ricardian vice, which indicates that rigorous logic does not provide a good economic theory.[33] This criticism applies also to most neoclassical theories, which make heavy use of mathematics, but are, according to him, theoretically unsound, because the conclusion being drawn does not logically follow from the theories used to defend it.

Ricardian socialists

Ricardo's writings fascinated a number of early socialists in the 1820s, who thought his value theory had radical implications. They argued that, in view of labor theory of value, labor produces the entire product, and the profits capitalists get are a result of exploitations of workers.[34] These include Thomas Hodgskin, William Thompson, John Francis Bray, and Percy Ravenstone.

Georgists

Georgists believe that rent, in the sense that Ricardo used, belongs to the community as a whole. Henry George was greatly influenced by Ricardo, and often cited him, including in his most famous work, Progress and Poverty from 1879. In the preface to the fourth edition, he wrote: "What I have done in this book, if I have correctly solved the great problem I have sought to investigate, is, to unite the truth perceived by the school of Smith and Ricardo to the truth perceived by the school of Proudhon and Lasalle; to show that laissez faire (in its full true meaning) opens the way to a realization of the noble dreams of socialism; to identify social law with moral law, and to disprove ideas which in the minds of many cloud grand and elevating perceptions."[35]

Neo-Ricardians

After the rise of the 'neoclassical' school, Ricardo's influence declined temporarily. It was Piero Sraffa, the editor of the Collected Works of David Ricardo[36] and the author of seminal Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities,[37] who resurrected Ricardo as the originator of another strand of economics thought, which was effaced with the arrival of the neoclassical school. The new interpretation of Ricardo and Sraffa's criticism against the marginal theory of value gave rise to a new school, now named neo-Ricardian or Sraffian school. Major contributors to this school includes Luigi Pasinetti (1930–), Pierangelo Garegnani (1930–2011), Ian Steedman (1941–), Geoffrey Harcourt (1931–), Heinz Kurz (1946–), Neri Salvadori (1951–), Pier Paolo Saviotti (–) among others. See also Neo-Ricardianism. The Neo-Ricardian school is sometimes seen to be a component of Post-Keynesian economics.

Neo-Ricardian trade theory

Inspired by Piero Sraffa, a new strand of trade theory emerged and was named neo-Ricardian trade theory. The main contributors include Ian Steedman and Stanley Metcalfe. They have criticised neoclassical international trade theory, namely the Heckscher–Ohlin model on the basis that the notion of capital as primary factor has no method of measuring it before the determination of profit rate (thus trapped in a logical vicious circle).[38][39] This was a second round of the Cambridge capital controversy, this time in the field of international trade.[40] Depoortère and Ravix judge that neo-Ricardian contribution failed without giving effective impact on neoclassical trade theory, because it could not offer “a genuine alternative approach from a classical point of veiw” [41]

Evolutionary growth theory

Several distinctive groups have sprung out of the neo-Ricardian school. One is the evolutionary growth theory, developed notably by Luigi Pasinetti, J.S. Metcalfe, Pier Paolo Saviotti, and Koen Frenken and others.[42][43]

Pasinetti[44][45] argued that the demand for any commodity came to stagnate and frequently decline, demand saturation occurs. Introduction of new commodities (goods and services) is necessary to avoid economic stagnation.

Contemporary theories

Ricardo's idea was even expanded to the case of continuum of goods by Dornbusch, Fischer, and Samuelson[46] This formulation is employed for example by Matsuyama[47] and others.

Ricardian trade theory ordinarily assumes that the labour is the unique input. This is a deficiency as intermediate goods are a great part of international trade. The situation changed after the appearance of Yoshinori Shiozawa's work of 2007.[48] He has succeeded to incorporate traded input goods in his model.

Yeats found that 30% of world trade in manufacturing is intermediate inputs.[49] Bardhan and Jafee found that intermediate inputs occupy 37 to 38% in the imports to the US for the years from 1992 to 1997, whereas the percentage of intrafirm trade grew from 43% in 1992 to 52% in 1997.[50]

Unequal exchange

Chris Edward includes Emmanuel's unequal exchange theory among variations of neo-Ricardian trade theory.[51] Arghiri Emmanuel argued that the Third World is poor because of the international exploitation of labour.[52]

The unequal exchange theory of trade has been influential to the (new) dependency theory.[53]

Publications

Works, 1852

Ricardo's publications included:

His works and writings were collected in:

References

Notes

  1. ↑ Miller, Roger LeRoy. Economics Today. Fifteenth Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. page 559
  2. ↑ Sowell, Thomas (2006). On classical economics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  3. ↑ http://www.policonomics.com/david-ricardo/
  4. 1 2 Heertje, Arnold (2004). "The Dutch and Portuguese-Jewish background of David Ricardo". European Journal of the History of Economic Thought. 11 (2): 281–294. doi:10.1080/0967256042000209288.
  5. ↑ Francisco Solano Constancio, Paul Henri Alcide Fonteyraud. 1847. Œuvres complètes de David Ricardo, Guillaumin, (pp. v-xlviii): A part sa conversion au Christianisme et son mariage avec une femme qu'il eut l'audace grande d'aimer malgré les ordres de son père
  6. ↑ Ricardo, David. 1919. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. G. Bell, p. LIX: "by reason of a religious difference with his father, to adopt a position of independence at a time when he should have been undergoing that academic training"
  7. 1 2 Sraffa, Piero, David Ricardo (1955), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo: Volume 10, Biographical Miscellany, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 434, ISBN 0-521-06075-3
  8. ↑ The London Gazette: no. 17326. p. 188. 24 January 1818. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  9. ↑ "RICARDO, David (1772–1823), of Gatcombe Park, Minchinhampton, Glos. and 56 Upper Brook Street, Grosvenor Square, Mdx.". History of Parliament Online. Retrieved 18 September 2013.
  10. ↑ David Ricardo at Find a Grave
  11. ↑ King, John (2013). David Ricardo. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 48.
  12. ↑ Okker, Rudolph. "Re: Samuda". Gen Forum. Retrieved 11 September 2014.
  13. ↑ Ricardo, David (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Piero Sraffa (Ed.) Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume I, Cambridge University Press, 1951, p.11.
  14. ↑ Ricardo, David (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Piero Sraffa (Ed.) Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume I, Cambridge University Press, 1951, p.47.
  15. ↑ Taknaga, S. (2016) Structure of the Theory of Value of David Ricardo.
  16. ↑ Y. Shiozawa (2016) "The revival of classical theory of values". Chapter 8, pp.151-172 in Nobuharu Yokokawa, Kiichiro Yagi, Hiroyasu Uemura and Richard Westra (Eds.) The Rejuvenation of Political Economy, May 2016, Oxon and New York: Routledge.
  17. ↑ On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation London: John Murray, Albemarle-Street, by David Ricardo, 1817 (third edition 1821) – Chapter 6, On Profits: paragraph 28, "Thus, taking the former . . ." and paragraph 33, "There can, however...."
  18. ↑ Britannica.com "English economist who gave systematized, classical form to the rising science of economics in the 19th century. His laissez-faire doctrines were typified in his Iron Law of Wages, which stated that all attempts to improve the real income of workers were futile and that wages perforce remained near the subsistence level.
  19. ↑ John Kenneth Galbraith, Economics in Perspective, "Returning to wages, Ricardo, in another of his greatly quoted passages, says that they are 'That price which is necessary to enable the labourers, one with another, to subsist and to perpetuate their race, without either increase or diminution.' This thought, as the Iron Law of Wages, was to enter into a history extending far beyond formal economics...", p. 84, Houghton Mifflin, 1987, ISBN 0-395-35572-9; the Ricardo quote above is referenced to page 93 of The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, edited by Piero Sraffa, Cambridge University Press, 1951
  20. ↑ The Columbia House Encyclopedia, "Ricardo...holds that wages tend to stabilize around the subsistence level...", Columbia University Press, 1983, ISBN 0-231-05678-8.
  21. ↑ Roberts, Paul Craig (2003-08-28), "The Trade Question", Washington Times
  22. ↑ Ricardo, David (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Piero Sraffa (Ed.) Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume I, Cambridge University Press, 1951, p.138 and p.170. See also Gilbert Faccarello, "Comparative Advantage", in Elgar Companion in David Ricardo, 2015.
  23. ↑ Ricardo, David (1817) On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Piero Sraffa (Ed.) Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Volume I, Cambridge University Press, 1951, p.135.
  24. ↑ Samuelson, Paul A. (1972), "The Way of an Economist." Reprinted in The Collected Papers of Paul A. Samuelson. Ed. R. C. Merton. Cambridge: Cambridge MIT Press. p. 378.
  25. ↑ A. Maneschi, The True Meaning of Ricardo's Four Magic Numbers, Journal of International Economics, 62: 433-443. Gilbert Faccarello, "Comparative Advantage", in Elgar Companion in David Ricardo, 2015. Y. Shiozawa, The New Interpretation of Ricardo's Four Magic Numbers and the New Theory of International Values / A Comment on Faccarello's "Comparative advantage," a paper read at a conference on March 23, 2016. Down loadable from ResearchGate.
  26. ↑ Jacob Viner, Studies in the Theory of International Trade 1937. Library of Economics and Liberty, VIII.9 and VIII.11.
  27. ↑ Robinson, Joan (1979). Aspects of Development and Underdevelopment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 0521226376.
  28. ↑ Letter of Mill http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=213&chapter=61555&layout=html&Itemid=27
  29. ↑ Williamson, J. G. (1990). "The impact of the Corn Laws just prior to repeal". Explorations in Economic History. 27 (2): 123. doi:10.1016/0014-4983(90)90007-L.
  30. ↑ Patnaik, Uta (2005). "Ricardo's Fallacy/ Mutual Benefit from Trade Based on Comparative Costs and Specialization?". In Jomo, K. S. The Pioneers of Development Economics: Great Economists on Development. London and New York: Zed books. pp. 31–41. ISBN 81-85229-99-6.
  31. ↑ Chang, Ha-Joon (2007), "Bad Samaritans", Chapter 2, pp. 30–31.
  32. ↑ Davis, William L., Bob Figgins, David Hedengren, and Daniel B. Klein. "Economics Professors' Favorite Economic Thinkers, Journals and Blogs (along with Party and Policy Views)," Econ Journal Watch 8(2): 126–146, May 2011 .
  33. ↑ Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, (published posthumously, ed. Elisabeth Boody Schumpeter), 1954. pp. 569, 1171. Schumpeter also criticized J. M. Keynes for committing the same Ricardian vice.
  34. ↑ Landreth Colander 1989 History of Economic Thought Second Edition, p.137.
  35. ↑ George, Henry, Progress and Poverty. Preface to the 4th Edition, November 1880.
  36. ↑ Piero Sraffa and M.H. Dobb, editors (1951–1973). The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. Cambridge University Press, 11 volumes.
  37. ↑ Sraffa, Piero 1960, Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press.
  38. ↑ Steedman, Ian, ed. (1979). Fundamental Issues in Trade Theory. London: MacMillan. ISBN 0-333-25834-7.
  39. ↑ Steedman, Ian (1979). Trade Amongst Growing Economies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. . ISBN 0-521-22671-6.
  40. ↑ Edwards, Chris (1985). "§3.2　The 'Sraffian' Approach to Trade Theory". The Fragmented World: Competing Perspectives on Trade, Money, and Crisis. London and New York: Methuen & Co. pp. 48–51. ISBN 0-416-73390-5.
  41. ↑ Christophe Depoortère, Joël Thomas Ravix 2015 The classical theory of international trade after Sraffa. Cahiers d'économie Politique / Papers in Political Economy (69): 203-234, February 2015.
  42. ↑ Pasinetti, Luisi 1981 Structural change and economic growth, Cambridge University Press. J.S. Metcalfe and P.P. Saviotti (eds.), 1991, Evolutionary Theories of Economic and Technological Change, Harwood, 275 pages. J.S. Metcalfe 1998, Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, Routledge, London. Frenken, K., Van Oort, F.G., Verburg, T., Boschma, R.A. (2004). Variety and Regional Economic Growth in the Netherlands – Final Report (The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs), 58 p. (pdf)
  43. ↑ Saviotti, Pier Paolo; Frenken, Koen (2008), "Export variety and the economic performance of countries", Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 18 (2): 201–218, doi:10.1007/s00191-007-0081-5
  44. ↑ Pasinetti, Luigi L. (1981), Structural change and economic growth: a theoretical essay on the dynamics of the wealth of nations, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. , ISBN 0-521-27410-9
  45. ↑ Pasinetti, Luigi L. (1993), Structural economic dynamics: a theory of the economic consequences of human learning, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. , ISBN 0-521-43282-0
  46. ↑ Dornbusch, R.; Fischer, S.; Samuelson, P. A. (1977), "Comparative Advantage, Trade, and Payments in a Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods" (PDF), The American Economic Review, 67 (5): 823–839, JSTOR 1828066
  47. ↑ Matsuyama, K. (2000), "A Ricardian Model with a Continuum of Goods under Nonhomothetic Preferences: Demand Complementarities, Income Distribution, and North–South Trade" (PDF), Journal of Political Economy, 108 (6): 1093–1120, doi:10.1086/317684.
  48. ↑ Shiozawa, Y. (2007). "A New Construction of Ricardian Trade Theory: A Multi-country, Multi-commodity Case with Intermediate Goods and Choice of Production Techniques". Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review. 3 (2): 141–187. doi:10.14441/eier.3.141.
  49. ↑ Yeats, A. (2001). "Just How Big is Global Production Sharing?". In Arndt, S.; Kierzkowski, H. Fragmentation: New Production Patterns in the World Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-924331-X.
  50. ↑ Bardhan, Ashok Deo; Jaffee, Dwight (2004). "On Intra-Firm Trade and Multinationals: Foreign Outsourcing and Offshoring in Manufacturing". In Graham, Monty; Solow, Robert. The Role of Foreign Direct Investment and Multinational Corporations in Economic Development.
  51. ↑ Chris Edwards 1985 The Fragmented World: Competing Perspectives on Trade, Money and Crisis, London and New York: Methuen. Chapter 4.
  52. ↑ Emmanuel, Arghiri (1972), Unequal exchange; a study of the imperialism of trade, New York: Monthly Review Press, pp. , ISBN 0-85345-188-5
  53. ↑ Palma, G (1978), "Dependency: A formal theory of underdevelopment or a methodology for the analysis of concrete situations of underdevelopment?", World Development, 6 (7–8): 881–924, doi:10.1016/0305-750X(78)90051-7

Bibliography

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to David Ricardo.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: David Ricardo
Wikisource has original works written by or about:
David Ricardo
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Preceded by
Richard Sharp		 Member of Parliament for Portarlington
1819–1823 		Succeeded by
James Farquahar
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 11/27/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.