Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T16:22:40.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BON PRIX, PROFIT, AND CAPITAL ACCUMULATION IN QUESNAY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2018

Matteo Menegatti
Matteo Menegatti*
Affiliation:
Independent Scholar. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article discusses François Quesnay’s dynamics of capital accumulation. First, we analyze the notion of bon prix to highlight the central analytical role played by profits in Quesnay’s growth dynamics. This leads us to challenge Ronald Meek’s interpretation ([1962] 2003) and to (re)propose Peter Groenewegen’s suggestion (1974 and 1983) that profits are not included in the net product for policy reasons. We also show that profits display features resembling a stable income component such as supervision wages (see Marx [1863] 1963). Second, we contest Steven Pressman’s argument (1994, pp. 143–154) that Quesnay missed the distinction between nominal and real variables by modeling how the farmers’ monetary interest (and profit) initiates the capital accumulation process (see Vaggi 1985), which over time leads to an increase of the (physical) surplus rate and thus of the net product in real terms.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 23 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aspromourgos, Tony. 2009. The Science of Wealth: Adam Smith and the Framing of Political Economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Beer, Max. 1939. An Inquiry into Physiocracy. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen. [1884] 1890. Capital and Interest. A Critical History of Economical Theory.Translated with a Preface by Smart, William. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brewer, Anthony. 2008. “The Concept of an Agricultural Surplus from Petty to Smith.” University of Bristol, Discussion Paper 8(602).Google Scholar
Buurman, Gary B. 1991. “A Comparison of the Single Tax Proposals of Henry George and the Physiocrats.” History of Political Economy 23 (3): 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantillon, Richard. [1755] 2015. Essay on the Nature of Trade in General. A Variourum Edition. Edited by Berg, Richard van den. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cartellier, Jean, and Longhitano, Gino, eds. 2012. Quesnay and Physiocracy: Studies and Materials. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
Charles, Löic, and Théré, Christine. 2016a. “Charles Richard de Butré: An Economist in the Shadow of François Quesnay.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 38 (2): 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, Löic, and Théré, Christine. 2016b. “Charles Richard de Butré: Pioneer of Mathematical Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 38 (3): 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daire, Eugene M., and Dussart, Hippolyte. 1844. Oeuvres de Turgot. Paris: Guillaumin.Google Scholar
Eltis, Walter. 1984. The Classical Theory of Economic Growth. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eltis, Walter. 1996. “The Grand Tableau of François Quesnay’s Economics.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 3 (1): 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, David, ed. 2011. The Turgot Collection. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Groenewegen, Peter. 1974. “Review of Meek’s Turgot on Progress, Sociology and Economics.” History of Political Economy 6 (4): 478–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenewegen, Peter. 1977. The Economics of A. R. J. Turgot. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenewegen, Peter. 1983. Quesnay: Farmers 1756 and Turgot: Sur la grande et la Petite Culture. University of Sydney: Reprints of Economic Classics, Series 2 (2).Google Scholar
Groenewegen, Peter. 1992. Turgot: Extracts from His Economic Correspondence. University of Sydney: Reprints of Economic Classics, Series 2 (6).Google Scholar
Kurz, Heinz D., and Salvadori, Neri. 1993. “Von Neumann’s Growth Model and the ‘Classical’ Tradition.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 1 (1): 129–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kwass, Michael. 2000. Privilege and the Politics of Taxation in Eighteenth-Century France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. [1863] 1963. Theories of Surplus Value. Part 1. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
McNally, David. 1988. Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism: A Reinterpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Meek, Ronald L. [1962] 2003. The Economics of Physiocracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meek, Ronald L. 1968. “Ideas, Events and Environment: The Case of French Physiocrats.” In Eagly, Robert V., ed., Events, Ideology and Economic Theory: The Determinants of Progress in the Development of Economic Analysis. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, pp. 44–58.Google Scholar
Meek, Ronald L. 1973. Turgot on Progress, Sociology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milanovic, Branko. 2015. “The Level and Distribution of Income in Mid-Eighteenth-Century France, According to François Quesnay.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 37 (1): 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirabeau, Marquis de, and Quesnay, François. [1757–59] 1999. Traité de la monarchie. Edited by Longhitano, Gino. Paris: Harmattan.Google Scholar
Mirabeau, Marquis de, and Quesnay, François. 1763. Philosophie Rurale, ou économie générale et politique de l’agriculture … [etc.]. Amsterdam: Les libraires associés.Google Scholar
Oncken, August. [1902] 2007. Geschichte der Nationalökonomie. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Pressman, Steven. 1994. Quesnay’s Tableau économique: A Critique and Reassessment. New York: Augustus Kelley Publishers.Google Scholar
Quesnay, François. 1958. François Quesnay et la Physiocratie. Paris: INED.Google Scholar
Quesnay, François. 2005. Œuvres économiques complètes de François Quesnay et autres textes. Edited by Théré, Christine, Charles, Löic, and Perrot, Jean-Claude. Paris: INED.Google Scholar
Sabbagh, Gabriel. 2015. “The Philosophie Rurale of Quesnay, Mirabeau, and Butré, after 250 Years.” Contributions to Political Economy (34): 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabbagh, Gabriel. 2016. “Cantillon in French and English. Two Editions by Richard van den Berg and Anthoin E. Murphy: New Facts and Hypothesis.” Contributions to Political Economy 35: 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S., eds., Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith. Volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Théré, Christine, and Charles, Löic. 2009. “Les textes économiques parlent-ils d’eux-mêmes?” Cahiers d’Économie politique 57: 67–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaggi, Gianni. 1983. “The Physiocratic Theory of Prices.” Contributions to Political Economy 2: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaggi, Gianni. 1985. “A Physiocratic Model of Relative Prices and Income Distribution.” The Economic Journal 95 (380): 928–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaggi, Gianni. 1987. The Economics of François Quesnay. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Berg, Richard. 2004. “‘Un état de pleine concurrence’: Old and new Controversies about Physiocratic Theory of Value.” Économies et Sociétés, Historie de la pensée économique 35 (8–9): 1431–1457.Google Scholar
van den Berg, Richard. 2012. “‘Something Wonderful and Incomprehensible in Their Oeconomy’: The English Versions of Richard Cantillon’s Essay on the Nature of Trade in General.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 19 (6): 868–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar