What do you think?
Rate this book
Theories of Value and Distribution since Adam Smith: Ideology and Economic Theory
Mr Dobb examines the history of economic thought in the light of the modern controversy over capital theory and, more particularly, the appearance of Sraffa's book The Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities, which was a watershed in the critical discussions constituted a crucial turning-point in the history of economics: an estimate not unconnected with his reinterpretation of nineteenth-century economic thought as consisting of two streams or traditions commonly confused under the generic title of 'the classical tradition' against which Jevons so strongly reacted.
- GenresEconomicsNonfiction
304 pages, Paperback
First published May 10, 1973
5 people are currently reading
254 people want to read
About the author
Maurice Dobb
89 books24 followersMaurice Herbert Dobb was a British economist at Cambridge University and a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. He is remembered as one of the pre-eminent Marxist economists of the 20th century.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 22, 2015
a mediocre but pioneering reading of the history of the labor theory of value. Dobb is interesting for his contribution to the transition debate, especially for basically presaging the now-hegemonic Brenner thesis. his reading of Marx's theory of value somewhat misapprehends the purpose--Dobb talks, for example, about Marx's selection of value as a standard unit of measure because it was supposedly more homogeneous than land. a better read would place Marx's theory of value in the later work in relation to his earlier work that focused on the uniqueness of humanity's ability to produce its own conditions of existence through work--it makes Marx's selection of labor seem rather arbitrary and technical. he gets closer with his suggestion that labor is value "because it constitutes a “unique cost” among others" (from my thesis) but this is staged in psychological terms derived from Smith--that working sucks and is a unique burden among burdens because it involves giving up one's time--and not in the sense that it represents human society's greatest asset. he also reads Marx's theory as a theory of price determination, which is an understandable mistake in the Anglophone context at the time. arguably, Marx's theory can be read as one of price determination (and as Shaikh and Desai have shown, it's actually quite accurate empirically), especially given that more "Ricardian" works such as Value, Price and Profit and Capital Vol. III imply this. but even then, it was a mistake to not read the sociological character of the analysis in Vol. I, which was arguably Marx's most well-prepared theoretical statement. it also is redundant to price theories that use physical data inputs, anyways, and so for that reason unnecessary.
November 24, 2018
Review of Maurice Dobb’s Theories of Value and Distribution since Adam Smith: Ideology and Economic Theory, 1973
After a Masters in Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University, I eventually went on to a doctorate program in International Studies at the University of Denver. There, I became obsessed with the history of economic thought -- in part because I could not make heads or tails of “Development Economics.” Specifically, I wanted to understand the nature of the global political economy and locate the reasons why some states were rich and others poor. Development economics seemed to address this issue but not with any clarity, wisdom, or the kind straightforward prose that I could understand. I recall reading parts of the following books: Marc Blaug’s Economic Theory in Retrospect; and, Schumpeter’s History of Economic Analysis. I must have read many more such books but these are the two I remember -- even if I don’t remember anything I read in them.
Dobb’s book is also a history of economic thought but done in 272 pages instead of the 900 by Blaug and the 1,200 by Schumpeter. Dobb is certainly in conversation with these two books and especially Schumpeter, with whom he disagrees but clearly respects.
Dobb’s special skill takes two forms: he can distill into a few paragraphs the full corpus of a theorist – e.g., Quesnay, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill, Marx, Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Sraffa, Keynes, Kalecki. Dobb’s writing is efficient, pithy, and he gives without trying a sense of being widely and deeply knowledgeable. He can put any of these economists in conversation with each other at the drop of a dime. I could imagine playing a game with him in which we name any two economists in the history of the Western canon and Dobb give us the specific innovation of each, places each in historical and institutional context, and then contrasts their vision. This is how the book often reads. The painting is pointillist: move out and you get the grand vista; move in and you get the dots and their connection.
Because he moves from page to page while providing you only the keenest insights the reader can miss much. One has to be on one’s toes. I needed to read this three times. The first time, I highlighted only a half dozen passages. The second time, I skipped the introduction (because I could not make sense of it) and focused on chapters covering Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. The third time, I found the introduction utterly brilliant – it is an essay on how to assess economic theories -- and then I re-read the entire book.
It took some time for me to befriend his writing style – which I found indirect. He couches the most pointed judgments within a cloud of caveats and understatements. In part, this seems to be high British style. But in part, this maybe how one has to speak when knows everything.
The book, at the end of the day, is a kind of defense of classical political economy – with its emphasis on the social relations that focusing on production emphasizes. It promotes the sociological and historical context within which Marx places economic theorizing. It finds wanting the relevance of theories that emerge from the marginal revolution of the 1870s. But these latter theories are not dismissed out of hand. Dobb explores them, contrasts them, and places them within Schumpeter’s division between the formal apparatus of theorizing and its historical and institutional “vision.”
Thus Dobb provides (a) an internal critique of theories that eliminate sociology and history by focusing on individual mental assessment of exchange goods, (b) while he reintroduces the significance of theories in which labor, production, distribution, value, and surplus are the key categories.
Dobb’s book is a monumental achievement but one that is easy to miss.
After a Masters in Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University, I eventually went on to a doctorate program in International Studies at the University of Denver. There, I became obsessed with the history of economic thought -- in part because I could not make heads or tails of “Development Economics.” Specifically, I wanted to understand the nature of the global political economy and locate the reasons why some states were rich and others poor. Development economics seemed to address this issue but not with any clarity, wisdom, or the kind straightforward prose that I could understand. I recall reading parts of the following books: Marc Blaug’s Economic Theory in Retrospect; and, Schumpeter’s History of Economic Analysis. I must have read many more such books but these are the two I remember -- even if I don’t remember anything I read in them.
Dobb’s book is also a history of economic thought but done in 272 pages instead of the 900 by Blaug and the 1,200 by Schumpeter. Dobb is certainly in conversation with these two books and especially Schumpeter, with whom he disagrees but clearly respects.
Dobb’s special skill takes two forms: he can distill into a few paragraphs the full corpus of a theorist – e.g., Quesnay, Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, Mill, Marx, Jevons, Menger, Walras, Marshall, Sraffa, Keynes, Kalecki. Dobb’s writing is efficient, pithy, and he gives without trying a sense of being widely and deeply knowledgeable. He can put any of these economists in conversation with each other at the drop of a dime. I could imagine playing a game with him in which we name any two economists in the history of the Western canon and Dobb give us the specific innovation of each, places each in historical and institutional context, and then contrasts their vision. This is how the book often reads. The painting is pointillist: move out and you get the grand vista; move in and you get the dots and their connection.
Because he moves from page to page while providing you only the keenest insights the reader can miss much. One has to be on one’s toes. I needed to read this three times. The first time, I highlighted only a half dozen passages. The second time, I skipped the introduction (because I could not make sense of it) and focused on chapters covering Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. The third time, I found the introduction utterly brilliant – it is an essay on how to assess economic theories -- and then I re-read the entire book.
It took some time for me to befriend his writing style – which I found indirect. He couches the most pointed judgments within a cloud of caveats and understatements. In part, this seems to be high British style. But in part, this maybe how one has to speak when knows everything.
The book, at the end of the day, is a kind of defense of classical political economy – with its emphasis on the social relations that focusing on production emphasizes. It promotes the sociological and historical context within which Marx places economic theorizing. It finds wanting the relevance of theories that emerge from the marginal revolution of the 1870s. But these latter theories are not dismissed out of hand. Dobb explores them, contrasts them, and places them within Schumpeter’s division between the formal apparatus of theorizing and its historical and institutional “vision.”
Thus Dobb provides (a) an internal critique of theories that eliminate sociology and history by focusing on individual mental assessment of exchange goods, (b) while he reintroduces the significance of theories in which labor, production, distribution, value, and surplus are the key categories.
Dobb’s book is a monumental achievement but one that is easy to miss.
September 14, 2021
It covers a lot of different economic theories, so it serves as a good intro to them, but sometimes needs you to know the terms beforehand. Though it isn't a very dense book.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews