Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Distribution: A. In logic, distribution refers to the scope of a term in a proposition. A term is distributed if it refers to all of the members of its class, and undistributed if it refers to only some of the members of its class. See also Syllogisms.
B.
In economics, distribution refers to how income, wealth, or resources are allocated among individuals, groups, or factors of production (e.g., labor, capital). It examines the fairness, efficiency, and patterns of allocation within an economy, influenced by policies, market forces, and societal structures._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Joan Robinson on Distribution - Dictionary of Arguments
Harcourt I 169 Value theory/distribution theory/Robinson/Harcourt: Some writers, for example, Bhaduri [1969](1), Joan Robinson [1965a](2), also [1965b](3), pp. 173-81, and Nell [1967b](4); look to Marx's theory of exploitation brought up to date in the guise of relative bargaining strengths, to explain the distribution of income, treated as a surplus, between profit-receivers and wage-earners. >Value theory/Marx. Competition: Competition's role, then, is to ensure the equality of profit rates in all activities and this, together with the technical coefficients of production, determine relative prices, i.e. the classical dichotomy between the theory of distribution and the theory of value is restored. In this way capital goods in their role of aids to labour - a role common to all industrial societies, capitalist or socialist – Harcourt I 170 can be separated from capital in its role of investible funds, belonging to those who own - have property in - the means of production and who obtain a share in the distribution of the net product or surplus because of their property rights. The trouble with jelly (>Terminology/Harcourt) is that it was meant to serve both purposes (it is after all the ideal medium by which the two concepts may be merged into one) and the theory of production relations and value was meant to be independent of the institutions of society; that is, relations between men were treated as irrelevant for an explanation of distribution. As J. B. Clark [1889](5), pp. 312-13, says: „It [the principle of differential gain] identifies production with distribution and shows that what a social class gets is, under the natural law, what it contributes to the general output of industry. Completely stated the principle of differential gain affords a theory of Economic Statics.“ Robinson: And as Joan Robinson [1970b](6) puts it, Walras' short-run stocks of physical inputs have been boiled down into a homogeneous, malleable commodity (leets) which can both produce output and purchase extra capital goods (through saving being investment) at an unchanged price of one to one. Rate of return: The owners of the capital goods receive a rate of return - leets over leets - equal to the marginal product of the existing (fullyemployed and correctly formed) stocks at any moment of time. Marx: It wasMarx's insight that the separation of value from institutions was invalid even in a world of pure logic, and the significance of the distinction for the case of more than one capital good has been emphasized by the modern critics of the neoclassical parables. Here the again parables: Harcourt I 122 (1) an association between lower rates of profits and higher values of capital per man employed; (2) an association between lower rates of profits and higher capital-output ratios; (3) an association between lower rates of profits and (through investment in more 'mechanized' or 'round-about' methods of production) higher sustainable steady states of consumption per head (up to a maximum); (4) that, in competitive conditions, the distribution of income between profit-receivers and wage-earners can be explained by a knowledge of marginal products and factor supplies. Neo-NeoclassicalsVs: >Distribution theory/Neo-neoclassicals, >Value theory/Neo-neoclassicals. 1. Bhaduri, A. [1969] 'On the Significance of Recent Controversies on Capital Theory: A Marxian View', Economic Journal, LXXIX, pp. 532-9. 2. Robinson, Joan [1965a] 'Piero Sraffa and the Rate of Exploitation', New Left Review, pp. 28-34. 3. Robinson, Joan [1965b] Collected Economic Papers, Vol. Ill (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). 4. Nell, E. J. [1967b] 'Theories of Growth and Theories of Value', Economic Development and Cultural Change, xvi, pp. 15-26. 5. Clark, J. B. [1889] 'The Possibility of a Scientific Law of Wages', Publication of the American Economic Association, iv, pp. 39-63. 6. Robinson, Joan [1970b] 'Review of C. E. Ferguson, The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution, 1969', Economic Journal, LXXX, pp. 336-9._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
EconRobin I James A. Robinson James A. Acemoglu Why nations fail. The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty New York 2012 Robinson I Jan Robinson An Essay on Marxian Economics London 1947 Harcourt I Geoffrey C. Harcourt Some Cambridge controversies in the theory of capital Cambridge 1972 |
||
> Counter arguments against Robinson
> Counter arguments in relation to Distribution
Authors A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Concepts A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
