,AllynYoung,andtheDivisionofLaborRameshChandra1ThedivisionoflaboriscentraltoAdamSmith’-2ple,ifeachmanspecializesinsomeparticularaspectofpinmaking,,ifthereisnospecializationsothateverymanisinvolvedinalltheaspectsofpinmaking,:increaseinskillsanddexterityofeachworker,savingoftimewhilegoingfromonekindofwork(orprocess)toanother,and,finally,,barter,,,,orinasubsistenceeconomy,orinarudestateofsoci-etysomekindofexchangeispossiblebutsincethetotalproduceexchangedisquitelim-ited,,sincethedivisionoflaborarisesasaresultofexchange,,’,intheabsenceoftrade,,byovercomingthenarrownessofthedomesticmarket,,Glasgow,
(.,forwhichitsabsolutecostsarelower),,saybytariffsorimport4restrictions,misdirectsacountry’,therefore,,“Smith’stheoryofforeigntradeissocloselyinterwovenwithhistheoryofdomesticeconomicdevelopmentthatthetwohavetobeconsideredtogether”(1977,231).EversinceDavidRicardocouchedhisexplanationoftradeinstaticterms,’sexplanationoftradewasintermsofcomparativeadvantage,-caltheoryofcomparativeadvantage,whichpredominatesnow,:Despiteitsrecentre-emergencetoanalyticalimportance,(orsetofideas)mighthavebeenquitedifferentifAdamSmith’,mutuallybeneficialexchangeemergesbecauseofspecialisa-tion,which,initsturn,,bycontrast,tradepresumablyemergesbecauseproductiveresourcesdifferintheircapacitiestocreateeco-nomicvalue....,inthisexplanation,,bothfortheeconomyandforitsseparateproductivesectors.(2000,43),
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,andtheDivisionofLabor789onsetofthestationarystate,,Ricardo’,,“IncreasingReturnsandEconomicProgress”(1928).Therehewrote:“Infact,asIamboundtoconfess,Iamtakingitasthetextofthispaper,inmuchthewaysomeminorcomposerborrowsathemefromoneofthemastersandaddscertaindevelopmentsorvariationsofhisown”(529).’’scontributionwasinfactmuchmorethanwhathe,inhismodesty,;,,,therefore,istoshowthatwhileSmithandYoungbothmadeimportantcontributionsonthesubjectofthedivisionoflabor,-6tratedontheneedtodevelopappropriateinstitutions,,-tionforendogenousgrowth,Youngwasmoreconcernedwithhowthesystemofnaturallibertyactuallyworkstoproduceendogenousgrowth.
-latedbytwofactors:“firstbytheskill,dexterity,andjudgementwithwhichitslabourisgenerallyapplied;and,secondly,bytheproportionbetweenthenumberofthosewhoareemployedinusefullabour,andthatofthosewhoarenotsoemployed....Theabun-danceandscantinessofthissupplytooseemstodependmoreupontheformerofthosetwocircumstancesthanuponthelatter”(Smith1776,,1–2).Inasocietyofhunt-ersandfishers,althoughtheproportionofusefullyemployedpeopleislargetheystill7liveinwant,poverty,,onthecontrary,,becauseofthebetterdivisionoflaborinasystemofnaturalliberty,anindustriousandfrugalpeasant,inadditiontofoodforhissubsistence,wasabletoenjoysuchthingsasawoollencoat,acoarselinenshirt,shoes,akitchengrate,knivesandforksandkitchenutensils,earthenwareorpewterplates,andglasswindowswiththeresultthathisaccommodationfarexceededthatofanAfricanking(I,16).Thedivisionoflabor,inturn,:“Inexorableasistheprocessofgrowth,,butofhistoryinwhichhumanchoicesintheformofpoliticaldecisionsplayadecisiverole”(1975,423).,manyoftheotherpartsofthebookaredevotedtothestudyofsuchconditions,institutions,:,andtheancientandmodernsystemsdevotedtotheone-sidedfurtheringofagriculturearedenouncedbecause“eachissubversiveofthegreatpurposewhichitmeanstopromote.”Onlytheco-operationoffreemenlefttothemselvesinpursuing
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,andtheDivisionofLabor791theirinterestsunderagovernmentprotectinglawandorderwillsucceedinpro-motingthatpurpose:steadyincreaseinwealthandwelfare.(1975,423–4),inancientRomeandGreecemanu-facturewascarriedonbyslavelabor,butthistendedtobeveryexpensive:Slaves,however,areveryseldominventive;andallthemostimportantimprove-ments,eitherinmachineryorthearrangementanddistributionofwork,whichfacilitateandabridgelabour,,hismasterwouldbeveryapttoconsidertheproposalasthesuggestionoflaziness,andofadesiretosavehisownlabouratthemaster’,insteadofreward,wouldprobablymeetwithmuchabuse,-facturescarriedoutbyslaves,therefore,morelabourmustgenerallyhavebeenemployedtoexecutethesamequantityofwork,,uponthataccount,generallyhavebeendearerthanthelatter.(Smith1776,II,205)Similarly,mercantilistarrangements,byputtingtariffsorprohibitionsonimports,,byreducingthegrossproduceofthesociety,,,byenlargingthesizeofthemarket,internationaltradepromotesthedivisionoflabor(Smith1776,I,468–9).,andnotconsumption,astheendofindustryandcommerce(II,178).Smithalsodenouncedtheagriculturalsystems,,,therebydistortingtheintersectoralallocationofresources.“Thosesystems,therefore,whichpreferringagriculturetoallotheremployments...actcontrarytotheveryendwhichtheypropose,andindirectlydiscouragethatveryspeciesofindustrywhichtheymeantopromote”(Smith1776,II,208).
792RameshChandraAccordingtoSmith,allsystemsbasedonartificialencouragementsorrestraintsarecounterproductiveandretardratherthanacceleratetheprogressofasociety(1776,II,208).,inturn,,thesystemofnaturallibertyrequiresthateachindividualisfreetopursuehisownself-interestprovidedhedoesnotviolatethelawsofjustice;andthestateconfinesitselftoafewbasictaskssuchasdefense,justice,andpublicworksandinstitutions(208–9).Moreover,-tiseorpunishthelawbreakers(Smith1776,II,231–2).TheimportanceofsecuritycanbegaugedfromthefactthatSmithregardedthis,andnotbountyoncorn,asthemainfactorinBritain’sprosperityandlackofsecurityandlibertyasoneofthechieffactorsinPortugalorSpain’srelativepoverty(49–50).Thesystemofnaturalliberty,however,:“Peopleofthesametradeseldommeettogether,evenformerrimentanddiversion,buttheconversationendsinacon-spiracyagainstthepublic,orinsomecontrivancetoraiseprices”(1776,I,144).Indeed,sodeepwashissuspicionofsuchclassesthatanyproposalcomingfromthemshouldbereviewedmostthoroughlybeforebeingadopted(278).Therefore,accordingtoYoung,’sAnalysisWhileSmithclearlysawthatthedivisionoflaborwasconstrainedbythesizeofthemarket,,listingandexplainingthebenefitsflowingfromthedivisionoflaborandstatinghowevenanordinaryworkercouldenjoybenefitsgreaterthananAfri-canking,,hedidnotstatewhetherincreasingreturnsweremicroormacro,theroleplayedbyexternalecono-miesintransmittingthem,ortheroleofindustrialfragmentationvis-à’scredit,(whichYoungdevelopedmorefullylater)butalsotheroleofinstitu-tions,systems,andconditionsforacompetitiveexchangeeconomytowork,without
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,’,,improvementsinmachinesandtechnologyaremadebythemakersofthemachines,“whentomakethembecamethebusinessofapar-ticulartrade,”andalsobyphilosophersormenofspeculation“whosetradeitisnottodoanything,buttoobserveeverything;andwho,uponthataccount,areoftencapableofcombiningtogetherthepowersofthemostdistantanddissimilarobjects.”Further:Intheprogressofsociety,philosophyorspeculationbecomes,likeeveryotheremployment,,itissubdividedintoagreatnumberofdifferentbranches,eachofwhichaffordsoccupationtoapeculiartribeorclassofphilosophers;andthissubdivisionofemploymentinphilosophy,aswellasineveryotherbusiness,improvesdexterity,-ualbecomesmoreexpertinhisownpeculiarbranch,moreworkisdoneonthewhole,andthequantityofscienceisconsiderablyincreasedbyit.(Smith1776,I,14)TheideathatincreasingreturnsmainlytaketheformofindustrialfragmentationwasdevelopedmorefullybyYoung(1928),,themakingofacoarsewoolencoatisnottheworkofonepersonbutagreatmultitudeofworkmen.“Theshepherd,thesorterofthewool,thewool-comberorthecarder,thedyer,thescribbler,thespinner,theweaver,thefuller,thedresser,withmanyothers,mustalljointheirdifferentartsinordertocompleteeventhishomelyproduction”(Smith1776,I,15).Smith,ofcourse,writinginthelaterhalfoftheeighteenthcenturywhenindustrialcapitalismwasinitsinfancy,,
,differentspecializedartsandcraftshavetojoinhands,,,inthenatureofthings,,,themorethepro-ductivehandsemployed,asaresultofthehigherdivisionoflabor,(includingmachinery)“learningbydoing,”-divisionoftasks,:“Inmoderngrowththeory,ArrowcomesclosesttoSmithwithhis‘learningbydoing’modelwheretherateofgrowthoflabourproductivityandwagesperheaddependontherateofgrowthofemploymentopportunities”(1975,427).YoungontheDivisionofLaborFromtheforegoingitisclearthatSmith’sdynamicanalysishascertainstrengths:forexample,:Doincreasingreturnsarisemainlyduetoeconomiesofscale?Whatroledoexternaleconomiesplay?Whatistheroleofindustrialfragmentationvis-à-visindustrialintegration?Areincreasingreturnsmicroeconomic,oraretheymacroeco-nomic?Isthedivisionoflaborconfinedtosplittingofjobsandspecializedcraftsordoesitextendtospecializationamongindustries?Doestheprocessofgrowthresultfromcir-cularcumulativecausation?Whilethedivisionoflabordependsonthesizeofthemar-ket,howdoesthesizeofthemarketdependonthedivisionoflabor?Young,writingaboutoneandahalfcenturiesafterSmith,addressedtheseissuesdirectlyandmorefully.
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,andtheDivisionofLabor795JobSpecializationversusDivisionofLaboramongIndustriesInSmith’-sionoflabortakestheformofsplittingupthetotalworkintosubtasks,eachofwhich,ifperformedbyadifferentworker,,,,seeninthisway,arenothingbuteconomiesofindustrialspecialization:“Withtheextensionofthedivisionoflabouramongindustriestherepresentativefirm,liketheindustryofwhichitisapart,,-tioncreatedbythegrowthofthemarketforthefinalproductsofindustrythedivisionoflabouramongindustriesisavehicleofincreasingreturns”(Young1928,538).13AccordingtoYoung,,buttheoppositeprocessofdifferen-tiationwasmuchmoreimportant:,underparticularcondi-tions,,industrialdifferentiation,,asshownbytheincreaseinthevarietyofgoodsofferedintheconsum-ers’markets,theincreaseinthediversificationofintermediateproductsandofindustriesmanufacturingspecialproductsorgroupsofproductshasgoneevenfurther.(1928,537):-
,then,aresegregatedandachievedbytheoperationsofspecialisedundertakingswhich,takentogether,,(whichisonlyincidentallyorunderspecialconditionsamatterofthesizeoftheindividualfirm)-scaleoperationatthisstageisthatitagainmakesmethodseconomicalwhichwouldbeuneconomicaliftheirbenefitscouldnotbediffusedoveralargefinalproduct.(Young1928,539)However,whenthedivisionoflaboramongindustriestakesplace,-tionhassomeadvantagesofitsownwhichareindependentoftheproductivetechnique:Forexample,itpermitsofahigherdegreeofspecialisationinmanagement,andtheadvantagesofsuchspecialisationareoftenreal,,,nearnesstootherindustriesortocheaptransportinanotherpart,,withasmallerelementofcompromise,canbehadbythemorespecialisedindustries.(Young1928,538–9),however,,,increasingreturnstaketheformofpecuniaryexternaleconomies;acompetitivemarketsystemisessentialfortheseeconomiestobetransmitted.
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,,:“Arepresentativefirmwithintheindustry,maintainingitsownidentityanddevotingitselftoagivenrangeofactivi-ties,ismadetobethevehicleormediumthroughwhichtheeconomiesachievedbytheindustryaretransmittedtothemarketandhavetheireffectonthepriceoftheproduct”(Young1928,528).AccordingtoYoung,thisdistinction,thoughfruitful,isnecessarilyapartialview,first,becauseinternaleconomiesofafirmmayfigureasexternalecono-miesofotherfirms,allsuchexternaleconomiescannotbeaccountedforbyaddinguptheinternaleconomiesofallfirmsand,second,becauseasaresultofexternalecono-miestherepresentativefirmitselfmayloseitsidentity:,likeitscompetitors,ismanufacturingaparticularproductorgroupofproducts,,,intheobscurerfieldfromwhichitderivesitsexternaleconomies,-ing,firmsareassumingnewtasks,,changeinthisexternalfieldisqualitativeaswellasquantitative....Notmuchistobegainedbyprobingintoittoseehowincreasingreturnsshowthemselvesinthecostsofindividualfirmsandinthepricesatwhichtheyoffertheirproducts.(1928,528)Ifincreasingreturnslargelytaketheformofexternaleconomies,whatexactlyistheroleofinternaleconomies?Itistruethatwhenthescaleofafirmexpands,itsfixedcostsarespreadoverlargeroutput,:Itwouldbewastefultomakeahammertodriveasinglenail;-structedjigs,gauges,lathes,drills,pressesandconveyorstobuildahundredautomobiles;itwouldbebettertorelymostlyupontoolsandmachinesofstan-dardtypes,’smethodswouldbeabsurdlyuneconomicalifhisoutputwereverysmall,andwouldbeunprofitableevenifhisoutputwerewhatmanymanufacturersofautomobileswouldcalllarge.(1928,530)
798RameshChandraButthebasicpointisthatsomecapitalistmethodsmaybecomefeasibleonlywhenthecostsarespreadovernotonlytheoutputofaparticularfirmbutthewholeindustry(oreconomy).Theextenttowhichafirmreapseconomiesbyapplyingroundaboutmethodsislimited,,thefirminquestionmaynotbetheoldfirmmanu-facturingaparticularproductoragroupofproducts;initsnewincarnation,-ther,,theentireindustry,throughtheprocessofdifferentiationorspecializedundertakings,,’(forexample,Sraffa1926),inthemain,taketheformofscale18economies,,“wemaymissthemifwetrytomakeoflarge-scaleproduction(inthesenseofproductionbylargefirmsorlargeindustries),ascontrastedwithlargeproduction,anymorethananinci-dentinthegeneralprocessbywhichincreasingreturnsaresecuredandifaccordinglywelooktoomuchattheindividualfirmoreven,asIshallsuggestpresently,attheindivid-ualindustry”(1928,531).InYoungincreasingreturnshavetobeunderstoodinterms19ofademandperspective;-ingontheSmithianargumentthatthedivisionoflaborislimitedbythesizeofthemar-ket,Youngemphasizedtheimportanceoftheaggregatemarketinhismacroviewofincreasingreturns.
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,,(1999),suchasimprovementsinagri-culturalmethodsandrevolutioninthemeansoftransport,,whiletheconceptofapro-ductionfunctionmaybeatruthfulrepresentationofamicroeconomicreality,;,,,ifoneinsistedinusingsupply-demandapparatus,thenitwouldbebettertousetheseconceptsinthereciprocalsenseandthattoowiththeassumptionofelasticdemandforeachcommodity:Undersuchconditionsanincreaseinthesupplyofonecommodityisanincreaseinthedemandforothercommodities,,butsincetheelasticitiesofdemandandofsupplywilldifferfordifferentproducts,-arypopulationandintheabsenceofnewdiscoveriesinpureorappliedsciencetherearenolimitstotheprocessofexpansionexceptthelimitsbeyondwhichdemandisnotelasticandreturnsdonotincrease.(Young1928,534)Becauseincreasingreturnsarechieflymacroeconomic,,economiesoflarge-scaleopera-tions,economiesofsimplificationandstandardization,“rational”industrialreforms:“Pressedbeyondapointtheybecomethereverseofrational”(Young1928,531).Youngfeltthattheso-called“rational”industrialreformswerenotasolutiontotheproblemsconfrontingBritishindustry:“AllowingforthecircumstancethatBritishindustry,asawhole,hasprovedtoberatherbadlyadjustedtothenewpost-wareco-nomicsituation,IknowofnofactswhichproveorevenindicatethatBritishindustry,seenagainstthebackgroundofitsownproblemsandpossibilities,islessefficiently
800RameshChandraorganisedorlessablydirectedthanAmericanindustryortheindustryofanyothercountry”(532).CommentingonYoung’spresidentialaddress,whichappearedashisfamous1928articleinEconomicJournal,CharlesBlitchobserved:Young’saddresswaspartiallyananswertoSraffa’’spresidentialaddresstotheBritishAssociationin1927titled,‘Ra-tionalisationofIndustry.’BritishindustryhadnotrecoveredfromtheeffectsofWorldWarI,andeconomistswereseekingwaystoimproveproductivityandprofits.‘Rationalisation’meantthatthefirmsinanindustrywouldformacar-teltocontrolthepriceandoutputoftheindustry’’-telisationofindustry,andwishedtoofferinitssteadalongerviewofprospectsformanufacturingingeneral.(1995,170–1).“Noanalysisoftheforcesmakingforeconomicequilib-rium,forceswhichwemightsayaretangentialatanymomentoftime,willservetoillu-minatethisfield,formovementsawayfromequilibrium,departuresfromprevioustrends,arecharacteristicofit”(1928,528).Moreover:“Seekingequilibriumconditionsunderincreasingreturnsisasgoodaslookingforamare’snest”(1990,45).YoungbuiltonSmith’’slaw,inwhichthemarketisviewedasanaggregateofproductiveactivitiestiedtogetherbytradeandcametothecon-clusion:“AdamSmith’sdictumamountstothetheoremthatthedivisionoflabourinlargepartdependsonthedivisionoflabour”(1928,533).Thisimpliesthatchangeis“progressiveandpropagatesitselfinacumulativeway”(533).FromthisLauchlinCurrie(1997):Thiswouldamounttosayingthatnorealeconomicprogresscouldcomethroughtheoperationofforcesengenderedwithintheeconomicsystem—acon-clusionrepugnanttocommonsense....Ishallmerelyobserve,first,thattheappropriateconceptionisthatofamovingequilibrium,andsecond,thatthecostswhich(underincreasingreturns)growlessrapidlythantheproductare
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,andtheDivisionofLabor801notthe“costs”whichfigureinan“equilibriumofcostsandadvantages.”(1928,21535)Finally,whileSmithexploredhowthedivisionoflaborisdeterminedbythesizeofthemarket,,,“thedivi-sionoflabourdependsontheextentofthemarket,buttheextentofthemarketdependsuponthedivisionoflabour”(1928,539),,,,,,aswehaveargued,hismaincontributionliesinthestudyofinstitutions,systems,,slavery,ortheagriculturalsystems,,ontheotherhand,,’sconceptionofthedivisionoflabortoincludeindustrylevelspecialization;,inhisview,,Young’scontributionwastoexplainmorefullyhowinamodernindustrialsystemthegrowthprocessactuallyperpetuateditselfbytheveryforcesengenderedwithinthesystem.
802RameshChandraBeforeintelligentpoliciescanbedesignedtopromotegrowth,-spread“governmentfailure”’-styleincreasingreturns,,,forexample,Schumpeter1954(187):“‘forthesuperioraffluenceandabundancecommonlypossessedevenby[the]lowestandthemostdespisedmemberofCivilisedsociety,comparedwithwhatthemostrespectedandactivesavagecanattainto’inspiteofsomuch‘oppressiveinequality.’Technologicalprogress,‘inventionofallthosemachines’—andeveninvest-ments—isinducedbyitandis,infact,justanincidentofit.”(suchasAdamSmith’spinfactory)andthesocialdivisionoflabor,-earningclass,throughabroadprocessofsocialdivisionoflabor,,italsoleadstorepetitivework,,ignorance,.“;anditisbynomeanscertainthatthisartificialdirectionislikelytobemoreadvantageoustothesocietythanthatintowhichitwouldhavegoneofitsownaccord”(Smith1776,I,475).’suntimelydeathin1929,’shabitofplacinghimselflast:“Hisinfluenceasateacherandacriticandasonewhowouldalwayssharewithothershisbestideaswasfargreaterthananyonecouldsupposewhoknewonlyhisprintedwords;foritwashisownwork—unfortunatelyperhaps—whichalwayscamelast”(quotedfromBlitch1995,185).,DouglassNorthhasarguedthatinstitutionsaffecttheperformanceofaneconomybytheireffectoncostsofexchangeandproduction(1990,5).Whilesomecountriesmaydevelopinstitutionsthatproducegrowthanddevelopment,—“old”versionisassociatedwiththeworksofAmericaneconomists—ThorsteinVeblen,,WesleyMitchell,andClarenceAyres,the“new”approachstemsfromthetransac-tioncostanalysisofRonaldCoase,OliverWilliamson,“sav-ages.”Forexample,theIndianpopulationsofAmericawerewellfed,clothed,,.
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,’,Smithnotedthatinthenaturalcourseofthingsacountry’scapitalisfirstemployedinagriculture,theninmanufacturing,,asmanyscholarshavenoted(.,Hollander1971,1973;Reid1989),.“Amongthenationofhunters,asthereisscarceanyproperty,ornonethatexceedsthevalueoftwoorthreedayslabor;sothereisseldomanyestablishedmagistrateoranyadministrationofjus-tice”(1776,II,231).TheinstitutionofprivatepropertyforSmithis,however,,italsoleadstogreatinequality:“Whereverthereisgreatproperty,,theremustbeatleastfivehundredpoor,andtheaffluenceofthefewsupposestheindigenceofmany”(232).Further:“Civilgovernment,sofarasitisinstitutedforthesecurityofproperty,isinrealityinstitutedforthedefenceoftherichagainstthepoor,orofthosewhohavesomepropertyagainstthosewhohavenoneatall”(236).Despitethisflawinthesystemofnaturalliberty,Smithfavoreditas,amongallthesystemsstudiedbyhim,.“Smith’srealconcernwasfortheestablishingandmaintainingofcompetitiveconditionsratherthanforavigorousobservancebygovernmentsofahandsoffpolicyinrespectofeco-nomicmatters”(Young1999,119).’stheoryofgrowth:(1954,187),EdwinCannan(1976,xxxii),andNicholasKaldor(1972,1975)regardedthedivisionoflaborascen-traltoSmith’,someauthors(.,Winch1997)sawthetheoryofcapitalaccumulation(andtheproportionofproductiveworkersinthetotalworkforce)ascentraltoSmith’(andincidentalto)(1987,1989)theincreasingreturnsarisingoutofspecializationarebasedonfixedcosts,,whethertheyariseoutofinternaleconomiesofscaleoroutofMarshallian-styleexternalecon-omies,,,forexample,Romer1987,1989;Krugman1990,1993,2000(withObstfeld);(orSayian)senseandoverallmarketisdefinedasanaggregateofproductiveactivitiestiedtogetherbytrade,-thing-at-a-timeapproach,,forhim,thetogetherness
804RameshChandraofeconomicphenomenondidnotproduceanequilibriumoutcomebut,rather,,hewasnotagainsttheideaofan“equilibriumrateofchange”ora“movingequilibrium.”SeealsotheletterfromYoungtoFrankKnight,October1928,citedbyCharlesBlitch(1995,176).-runaveragecostcurvefallsbutatadecliningratesothatequilibriumisreachedatthelowestpoint(afterwhichthecurvestartstorise).ThisisnotwhatYounghadinmind;“cumulativecausation”wasperhapsfirstusedbyThorsteinVeblen(1898)inhisclassicpaper“WhyIsEconomicsNotanEvolutionaryScience?”Hewantedtheeconomicprocesstobestudiedintermsofcumulativecausationratherthanintermsof“naturallaws”or“tendencies”,whowasYoung’,::Macmillan,,JamesM.,.“ASmitheanPerspectiveonIncreasingReturns.”JournaloftheHistoryofEconomicThought22,(2000):43–,’-cago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,,Ramesh.“AllynYoungRevisited.”JournalofEconomicStudies30,(2003):46–,Lauchlin.“TheLeadingSectorModelofGrowthinDevelopingCountries.”JournalofEconomicStudies1,(1974):1–16.———.“ImplicationsofanEndogenousTheoryofGrowthinAllynYoung’sMacroeconomicConceptofIn-creasingReturns.”HistoryofPoliticalEconomy29,(1997):413–,.,.“MonopolisticCompetitionandOptimumProductDiversity.”AmericanEco-nomicReview67(June1977):297–,WalterA.“AdamSmith’sTheoryofEconomicGrowth.”InEssaysonAdamSmith,:ClarendonPress,,Samuel.“SomeImplicationsofAdamSmith’sAnalysisofInvestmentPriorities.”HistoryofPoliticalEconomy3(1971):238–64.———.:Heinemann,,Nicholas.“TheIrrelevanceofEquilibriumEconomics.”EconomicJournal82(December1972):1237–55.———.“WhatIsWrongWithEconomicTheory.”QuarterlyJournalofEconomics(August1975).Krugman,:MITPress,1990.———.TowardaCounter-CounterrevolutioninDevelopmentTheory,,.:WorldBank,,Paul,:,Mass.:Addison-Wes-ley,,’,:ClarendonPress,,Hla.“AdamSmith’sTheoryofInternationalTradeinthePerspectiveofEconomicDevelopment.”Economica44(1977):231–,,InstitutionalChange,:CambridgeUniver-sityPress,,::BasilBlackwell,1989.
AdamSmith,AllynYoung,andtheDivisionofLabor805Robertson,.,PieroSraffa,.“IncreasingReturnsandtheRepresentativeFirm:ASympo-sium.”(March1930):79–,Paul.“GrowthBasedonIncreasingReturnsDuetoSpecialization.”AmericanEconomicReview77,(1987):56–62.———.“CapitalAccumulationintheTheoryofLong-RunGrowth.”InModernBusinessCycleTheory,:HarvardUniversityPress,1989,52–,Malcolm.“InstitutionalEconomics:ThenandNow.”JournalofEconomicPerspectives15,(2001):173–,Piero.“TheLawsofReturnsunderCompetitiveConditions.”EconomicJournal(December1926):535–,,London:AllenandUnwin,,Tiber.“TwoConceptsofExternalEconomies.”JournalofPoliticalEconomy(April1954).Smith,.”,editedbyEdwinCannan,Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,,Thorstein.“WhyIsEconomicsNotanEvolutionaryScience?”QuarterlyJournalofEconomics12,(1898):373–,NewYork:RussellandRussell,1961,56–,Donald.“AdamSmith’sProblemsandOurs.”PaperforthePresident’sLectureontheOccasionoftheScottishEconomicSocietyinStirling,April8,,Allyn.“IncreasingReturnsandEconomicProgress.”EconomicJournal(December1928):527–42.———.“Economics.”:SelectedPapersofAllynAbbotYoung,:Routledge,,London,1929,925-32.———.“NicholasKaldor’sNotesonAllynYoung’sLSELectures1927–29.”JournalofEconomicStudies17,
