ABSTRACT OF PAPER
Title: The labour theory of value from Adam Smith to David Ricardo: the midway position of Dugald Stewart
Author: Ruellou Thomas
Despite numerous studies on Dugald Stewart (1753–1828), his position on the theory of value has not thoroughly been inquired into. Stewart would have been “avoiding questions relating to the theory of value” (Milgate & Stimson 2009: 102), and would never have expressed clearly the nature of profit (Kubo 2013: 82-83). Yet, the methodological proximity between Stewart and Ricardo (Depoortère 2008; 2013) encourages to study his theoretical propositions, thanks to his Lectures on Political Economy (1800–1809). I argue that Stewart sided with Ricardo because they shared specific assumptions underlying a labour theory of value. This could be deemed delusive as Stewart dealt with “labour commanded”, whereas Ricardo discarded it. Originally, labour only provided Adam Smith an exchange-based measure (1776: I.v), but not a theory of exchange ratios (ibid: I.vi-vii). Labour commanded did not aim at determining relative prices, but this conceptual distinction was mistaken by Ricardo. He claimed that labour commanded was a dead-end because relative prices depend on “the quantity of labour necessary” to produce commodities and not on “the quantity of labour for which they will exchange” (1817: 15-17). Yet, the meaning of labour commanded for Stewart was much narrower and, as a consequence, not only more limited but paradoxically opposite to Smith's. I start by crossing two implicit distinctions at the core of labour commanded. One is that between the “toil and trouble” of the labourer and the perception of the employer (Macdonald 1912; Hollander 1973; Blaug 1986; Coleman 1995; Hueckel 1998; Meacci 2014); the other is that between the command of “work done” and of “work to be done” (Meek 1965; Meacci 2012). Stewart rejected the assumption concerning the constancy of the labourer's sacrifice that actually made the measure of value accurate. The counterpart on exchange ratios of this restricted measure of value explains Stewart's drift towards Ricardo. They made exchange ratios depend on the value of inputs before exchange (“work done”). Finally, the choice of a standard commodity illustrates Stewart's tense between Smith and Ricardo. Stewart sought for a commodity whose exchange with labour is constant. However, long-run tendencies in the agricultural sector made him augur Ricardo's discussion of a commodity whose quantity of labour embodied is unstable.
Registred web users only can download this paper - Go back
Please note that files available for download have not been checked for viruses. These files have been submitted by authors of the conference to this web site. Conference organisers can't accept any responsibility for damages caused to users by downloading such files.