Affiliation:
1. University of the Basque Country (Universidad del Pais Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea)
Abstract
In this paper, the author critically analysed a unique passage of Pigou's 1933 “The Theory of Unemployment”. Here he is faced with a fundamental theoretical problem in the definition of the national dividend or national income, which has far-reaching consequences on the comprehension of the circulation of money. Pigou is one of the few economists who have noticed this problem and discussed it in the history of economics. The problem can be stated as follows: the part of the value of output that makes up for depreciation; is or is not up for division? Does or does not it become income (that is, wages and profits) in the aggregate? The passage analysed in this paper is exceptional in the history of economics. It is so, first, because it faces the problem. Secondly, but no less important, because Pigou, despite his hesitations, holds the nowadays minoritarian position that the value of the part of the output that makes up for depreciation does not become income for any economic factor. This view implies that this part of the output is not up for division and, therefore, is not a part of aggregate income.
Publisher
Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation
Reference37 articles.
1. Bowley A. L. The Definition of National Income. The Economic Journal. 1922; 32 (125, March) : 1-11.
2. Bowley A. L., Keynes J. M. The Measurement of Real Income. The Economic Journal. 1940;50 (198/199, June-September) : 340-342.
3. Dornbusch Rudiger, Fischer Stanley. Macroeconomics. 3rd Edition. London, UK: McGraw-Hill; 1981
4. Fetter Frank A. Reformulation of the Concepts of Capital and Income in Economics and Accounting. The Accounting Review. 1937;12 (1, March 1937) : 3-12.
5. Fisher Irving. The Nature of Capital and Income. Reprinted In Barber, William J. (1997), The Works of Irving Fisher”, Vol. 2. London, UK: Pickering and Chatto; 1906 [1997].