Advertisement

Complete Specialization in Classical Economics

  • Takashi Negishi
  • Takashi Negishi
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Japanese Business and Economics book series (AJBE, volume 2)

Abstract

The so-called modern interpretation of Ricardian theory of comparative advantage results in the drastic conclusion that each country (England or Portugal) specializes entirely in the production of a single commodity (cloth or wine). But Ricardo himself was merely concerned with marginal adjustments of production to the given terms of trade in his famous theory of gains from foreign trade. Ricardo has nothing to do with the complete specialization. It was J. S. Mill, however, who used the assumption of the complete specialization skillfully to determine the terms of trade uniquely in his theory of the reciprocal demand. Classical economists, including Bastable and W. T. Thornton, critically discussed many important aspects of Mill’s theory, but they did not seem to raise the objection to Mill’s assumption of entire specialization. It was Pareto, a neoclassical economist, who presented a numerical example for which the assumption is inappropriate.

Keywords

Specialization Comparative Advantage Linear Programming Reciprocal Demand 

Notes

Acknowledgments

It is my great honor and pleasure to contribute my paper to this Festschrift for Professor Ian Steedman, with whom I have shared a common interest in the history of economics and international trade theory. I remember, with many thanks, his review of my book (Steedman 1995). I would also like to thank an anonymous reviewer for their comments.

Bibliography

  1. Bastable, C. F. (1900). Theory of international trade. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Chipman, J. S. (1965). A survey of the theory of international trade: part I: the classical theory. Econometrica, 33, 477–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chipman, J. S. (1979). Mill’s ‘superstructure’: how well does it stand up? History of Political Economy, 11, 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dorfman, R., Samuelson, P. A., & Solow, R. M. (1958). Linear programing and economic analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Edgeworth, F. Y. (1894). The theory of international values, III. Economic Journal, 4, 424–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gandolfo, G. (1994). International economics I. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hollander, S. (1985). The economics of John Stuart Mill. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  8. Mill, J. S. (1874). Essays on some unsettled questions on political economy. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.Google Scholar
  9. Mill, J. S. (1869)[1976]. Thornton on labour and its claims, in idem. Essays on economics and society (pp. 631–668). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mill, J. S. (1871)[1909]. Preface to the 7th edn, in idem. Principles of political economy. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  11. Mill, J. S. (1909). Principles of political economy. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  12. Mizuta, K. (2004). Economic policy and economic liberalism: Ricardo’s case of international economics (in Japanese). The Keizaigaku, Annual Report of Economic Society, Tohoku University, 65, 489–502.Google Scholar
  13. Negishi, T. (1994). The history of economics. The collected essays of Takashi Negishi, II. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Negishi, T. (1998). Mill’s superstructure, how it should have been. Aoyama Journal International Politics, Economics and Business, 42, 27–39.Google Scholar
  15. Negishi, T. (2000). Economic thought from Smith to Keynes. The collected essays of Takashi Negishi, III. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Negishi, T. (2001). Developments of international trade theory. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Negishi, T. (2002). How Mill should have replied to Thornton. Transactions of the Japan Academy, 57, 38–40.Google Scholar
  18. Pareto, V. (1906). Manuale d’economia politica. Milano: Società editrice libraria.Google Scholar
  19. Pareto, V. (1971). Manual of political economy (A. S. Schwier, Trans.). New York: Kelley.Google Scholar
  20. Ricardo, D. (1951a)[1817]. On the principles of political economy and taxation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ricardo, D. (1951b). Pamphlets and papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Ricardo, D. (1952). Speeches and evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Samuelson, P. A. (1972). The collected scientific papers of Paul A. Samuelson, III. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Steedman, I. (1971). Trade amongst growing economies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Steedman, I. (Ed.). (1979). Fundamental issues in trade theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Steedman, I. (1995). The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, LXIII, 111–112.Google Scholar
  27. Steedman, I. and Metcalfe, J. S. (1973). On foreign trade. Economica Internazionale, 26, 516–528.Google Scholar
  28. Thornton, W. T. (1866). A new theory of supply and demand. Fortnightly Review, 6, 420–434.Google Scholar
  29. Thornton, W. T. (1869). On labour: Its wrongful claims and rightful dues, its actual present and possible future. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Thornton, W. T. (1870). On labour: its wrongful claims and rightful dues, its actual present and possible future (2nd ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Negishi
    • 1
  • Takashi Negishi
    • 2
  1. 1.The Japan AcademyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations