DAU Library

학위논문 동서

A.Smith와 D.Ricardo의 分配論에 관한 比較硏究

주영인

부산 : 東亞大學校 1983.

72장 ; 26cm.

학위논문(석사) : 東亞大學校 大學院 : 經濟學專攻, 1983년.

321.7 / 영문초록 : A study on the distribution theories of A.Smith and D, Ricardo is important to the modern distribution theory in a state of disorder in that the latter originated in the former. A. Smith, Living during a transitional period in the 18th century emphasized the increase of wealth of nation and critisized mercantilism, being grounded on laissez-faire, D. Ricardo developed the distribution theory through the theoretical controversy between him and T.R. Malthus over the Corn Law. Under that cirumstances, the distribution theory of A. Smith was incidential to production and the main subject of it was inquiry about the causes of deciding and changing the natural rates of wage, profit and rent. After analysis of those, he supported high wage because he thought the wage of labor was highest not in the richest society but in which rich was growing fastest. Moreover, he understood the tendency of the rate of profit to fall empirically and seemed to be conscious of absolute rent and differential rent, though poorly. D. Ricardo, taking a serious view of the distribution of value, described and unfolded the distribution theory on the basis of law of population and law of diminishing returns. He regarded the labor theory of value as the primary which could make clear the economic structure of Capitalistic society and insisted the whole value of commodities was divided into profit and wage. In addition that, he evolved the theory of differential rent, so cleared up the point that law of distribution was not inconsistent with law of value. In the mean time, arguing the interests of different classes, he manifested that by law of population and law of diminishing returns, corn became dear, wage rose, so profit fell and that according as corn became dear, money-wage increased, but for all that, practical wage decreased, so laborer suffered from the loss. Furthermore, the explained the process of the rate of profit to fall logically in connection with the theory of value. The above is the gist of the distribution theory of A. Smith and D. Ricardo, and comparision and appraisal of them is next. The first is their distribution theories were commonly characteristic of economics of class The second is those got achieved on the reflections of their age. Through his distribution theory, A. Smith criticized mercantile system which sought to gain the trade balance by the decreasion of the cost of production due to the policy of low wage, and also reproached high profit caused by the policy of mercantile monopoly. D. Ricardo, who was in full possession of convictior that high corn price should discourage the accumulation of capital via the rise of money wage and eventually hinder the development of the nation's industry, through his distribution theory, censured the landed class against corn import. The third is their distinct differences in the distibution theory. Regarding wage, A. Smith showed an optimistic view, while D. Ricardo pessimistic. In experimental recognition of the tendency of the profit to fall, they coincided, however, they could not realize the nature of profit. In order to know that, they should have distinguished labor force from labor. But in those days it seemed that the working class did not appear definitely, so the had a limitation of understanding it. Among A. Smith's theories of rent, D. Ricardo succeeded to differential rent and explained it. Of course, for the theory of value so as to remain coherent, the exclusion of absolute rent was essential. But this fact brought him to fail to notice absolute rent and we can assum that his had origin in his view of class which rent was not the same as profit substantially. Finally, though the economic structure which they presented is not existing today, they suggest a number of things to the modern distribution theory which thinks distribution only without regard to production, in that they elucidated production and distribution unifyingly. Therefore, the significance of both theories at our time will not be clear and accurate until we realize deeply the essence of political economy which considered the whole of economic together

바로가기