IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxecpp/v42y1990i4p751-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Samuel Hollander's 'Ricardian Growth Theory': A Critique

Author

Listed:
  • Peach, Terry

Abstract

This paper presents a textually-based critique of Samuel Hollander's "new view" interpretation of David Ricardo's growth analysis. It is argued that Hollander overstates his case in claiming that a "new view" style of reasoning was adopted by Ricardo from at least December 1814; that Ricardo's Principles contains the irreconciled use of both "new view" and "natural wage" analysis, with the latter alone compatible with the central doctrine on "permanent" movements unprofitability; and that Ricardo's later work confirms that he was never prepared to abandon his "natural wage" theory. In attempting to impose the "new view" as Ricardo's "true view," it is argued that Hollander has carried the search for textual consistency to unwarranted lengths. Copyright 1990 by Royal Economic Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Peach, Terry, 1990. "Samuel Hollander's 'Ricardian Growth Theory': A Critique," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 751-764, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:42:y:1990:i:4:p:751-64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-7653%28199010%292%3A42%3A4%3C751%3ASH%27GTA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8&origin=bc
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Enrico Sergio Levrero, 2018. "The Classical Theory of Wages and its Interpretations: A Critique of the Canonical Classical Model," Bulletin of Political Economy, Bulletin of Political Economy, vol. 12(1-2), pages 55-76, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:42:y:1990:i:4:p:751-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.