著者

岡田 元浩

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, no.2, pp.46-62, 2011 (Released:2019-08-20)

被引用文献数

2 2

---

Abstract: This paper compares Léon Walras’s and Marx’s thoughts on labour exchange, thereby illuminating the latter’s perspective that can lead to a forceful counterargument to the neoclassical principle of labour exchange, for which the former affords a foundation. Both Walras and Marx distinguish between labour ability as a factor of production and labour as its service, but exhibit a striking contrast in their explanations of the distinction. Walras’s distinction between ‘personal faculties’ and labour never attempts to reveal the peculiarities of the relationship they share. Walras essentially equates the relationship between the two with that between non-human factors and their respective services by stripping the former of human elements. This not only allows labour exchange to be incorporated into Walras’s general equilibrium system but also provides the groundwork for its neoclassical principle, which, on the basis of marginal theory, assumes work conditions to be determinable through the stylised market adjustment of the demand and supply of labour on each entrepreneur’s and worker’s maximisation behaviour. In contrast, especially in his pre-Capital writings, Marx underlines the worker’s subjectivity in deciding her labour performance. This implies that the type and intensity of time-unit labour varies depending on the worker’s will and the constraints upon it. Accentuating the particular characteristics of the relationship between labour power and labour in this way, Marx’s arguments lead to the invalidation of the neoclassical principle of labour exchange and rationalise the intervention of socio-political factors represented by the labour-capital class struggle in the determination of work conditions. Thus, this study focuses on the potential of Marx’s labour power-labour distinction independent of his exploitation theory-the basis of a weighty refutation of the neoclassical system. JEL classification numbers: B 13, B 14.

著者

岡田 元浩

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.57, no.2, pp.25-45, 2016 (Released:2019-08-30)

被引用文献数

2 2

---

Abstract: This study critically examines Léon Walras’s thoughts on labour in terms of pure, applied and social economics. In his theory of pure economics, Walras incorporated labour exchange into his general equilibrium system. He disregarded worker subjectivity towards labour performance and the resulting variability in the substance of labour. This neoclassicist bias emasculating the human traits of labour caused him to negate the distinctiveness of labour exchange and argue for its market determination. Thus, Walras assumed labour exchange to be ‘moral-free.’ In addition, Walras denied the influence of ‘moral’ factors in the scope of applied economics treating industries and contended that production activities, including the labour- management relationship, generally should be subject to free competition. However, Walras recognised a need for the state regulation of labour time. Nevertheless, he opposed the minimum wage system and denounced strikes for wage increases. Consequently, Walras adhered to his theory of labour exchange, incurring serious inconsistencies in his own arguments. Walras stressed that social economics dealing with distributional issues in light of justice represents ‘moral’ study. Under the profound influence of his father, Auguste Walras, Walras defended labour-based property rights and proposed land nationalisation. However, he justified the acquisition of capital profit as well as wages determined in a competitive market economy and denied a conflict between labour and capital. Hence, he substantially excluded labour exchange and the labour-capital relationship from the topics of social economics. In this manner, Walras advocated the market determination of labour exchange embracing its subsumption of production and distribution, and labour-management and labour-capital harmony. Therefore, Walras’s arguments in his trilogy allowed a moulding of the neoclassical principle of labour exchange. However, like his contemporary economists who advanced the same line of ideas, Walras enforced this step by playing down his own fair observations of the realities of industrial relations that were at variance with his theory. Thus, Walras’s trilogy reveals features of the formation of neoclassical thought on labour exchange. JEL classification numbers: B 13, J 01.

著者

岡田 元浩

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.53, no.2, pp.21-40, 2012 (Released:2019-08-22)

被引用文献数

4 4

---

Abstract: This paper re-examines W. S. Jevonsʼs thought on labour and elucidates its unique-ness and limitations. Jevonsʼs subjectivist approach penetrated his theory of labour, and he regarded pain as the measure of labour. In the first edition of The Theory of Political Economy, Jevons provided insights that could lead to the negation of the market determination of wages and other work conditions, thus offering a rationalisation of the interven-tion of socio-political factors in labour exchange. In doing so, Jevons distinguished himself from other neoclassical economists. However, Jevons lacked self-knowledge of the feature of his own theory. In addi-tion, he failed to provide a deeper perception of the distinctiveness of labour ex-change rooted in the variability of labour that depends on the workerʼs identity and the constraints imposed by the employer. Consequently, instead of advancing the an-ti-neoclassical perspective implied in his arguments, Jevons argued for the market determination of wages, similar to that of prices of non-human productive services and products, in the second edition of The Theory of Political Economy and other writings. Jevonsʼs opinions on real issues concerning industrial relations also demonstrated ambivalence. Jevons approved of union activities to shorten labour time and conced-ed the efficacy of legal measures in settling labour disputes. At the same time, he clung to his advocacy of the market determination of wages and harshly criticised strikes for a pay rise. Furthermore, Jevonsʼs dichotomy of ʻeconomicʼ and ʻsocialʼ mat-ters, expressed in The State in Relation to Labour, excluded labour-capital class strife and other socio-political factors from the scope of his economic study. This paper makes a thorough reappraisal of Jevonsʼs thought on labour, which has traditionally been construed as a transitional product from classicism to neoclassi-cism. JEL classification numbers: B 13, J 01.

著者

岡田 元浩

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.52, no.2, pp.138-140, 2011 (Released:2019-10-28)

著者

岡田 元浩

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, no.1, pp.93-95, 2009 (Released:2019-06-22)

著者

河野 良太 岡田 元浩

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, no.36, pp.152-154, 1998 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

岡田 元浩

出版者

The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.33, no.33, pp.174, 1995 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

岡田 元浩

出版者

The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.32, no.32, pp.28-39, 1994 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

26

---

This paper expounds the characteristics of both D. Ricardo's and K. Wicksell's theory of monetary economy. By comparing them, we find a clue to the re-examination of the history of macroeconomics from classical economists to J. M. Keynes.Wicksell, a pioneer of 20th century's macroeconomics, had a great respect for Ricardo's view of prices, and regarded it as the starting point of his own theory, in spite of his several criticisms of it. Indeed, Ricardo's view anticipated that of Wicksell more than Wicksell realized. We can cofirm this in Ricardo's comment on the relation of interest to price movements and the role of the banking system in it. While Wicksell is often referred to as a forerunner of Keynes, we are apt to take Ricardo merely as a proponent of Say's law and quantity theory of money, and hence the founder of ‘classics’ as Keynes said. But, after the above consideration, we ought to revalue Ricardo's view, and place it in the origin of the stream of thought which developed, via Wicksell's theory of price fluctuations, into Keynes's General Theory.

著者

杉山 忠平 岡田 元浩

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.31, no.31, pp.164-165, 1993 (Released:2010-08-05)