SCARCITY AND AGRICULTURAL LAND RENT IN LIGHT OF THE CAPITAL CONTROVERSY: THREE VIEWS*
- 1 December 1988
- Vol. 20 (3) , 207-238
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1988.tb00396.x
Abstract
S: This paper examines the different theories of agricultural land rent proposed by the neoclassical, Marxist, and neo‐Ricardian schools of economic thought. In so doing the paper undertakes two tasks: first, to explore the different definitions of scarcity that emerge from each school; and secondly to check the consistency between the view of scarcity and the analytical theory of rent that each school proposes. It is concluded that for each of the schools there is an inconsistency between their respective view of scarcity and the corresponding theory of rent, although the reasons for that inconsistency vary. It is further argued that although this inconsistency cannot be resolved for the case of neoclassical economics, there is some prospect of resolution for Marxist and neo‐Ricardian theories.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Quantitative Measurement of Some Marxist CategoriesEnvironment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 1987
- TOWARDS A SOCIOLOGICAL DEFINITION OF RENT: NOTES ON DAVID HARVEY'S THE LIMITS TO CAPITAL*Antipode, 1986
- Technical choice and reswitching in space economiesRegional Science and Urban Economics, 1984
- The Implications of Marxian Rent Theory For Community-Controlled Redevelopment StrategiesJournal of Planning Education and Research, 1984
- Nonproduced Means of Production: Neo-Ricardians vs. FundamentalistsReview of Radical Political Economics, 1983
- A postmortem on the neoclassical “parable”Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1980
- SCARCE NATURAL RESOURCES AND INCOME DISTRIBUTION*Metroeconomica, 1975
- CONTENTIOUS ISSUES IN MARXIAN VALUE AND RENT THEORY: A SECOND AND LONGER LOOKAntipode, 1975
- Reswitching and Primary Input UseThe Economic Journal, 1972
- The SRAFFA system and critique of the neo-classical theory of distributionDe Economist, 1970