David Ricardo

Adam Smith argued that free commercial banking, such as the banking system in Scotland which had no central bank when Wealth of Nations was written in 1776, was favorable to economic growth. Writing just a few decades later, Ricardo argued for a central bank, a cause that was taken up by his students, including John Stuart Mill, who was known to favor the laissez-faire policies in every place but banking.

Ricardo wrote the Plan for the Establishment of a National Bank (published posthumously in 1824), which argued for the autonomy of the central bank as the issuer of money.[21]

Ricardo proposed that a ratio of gold and Treasury bills, and a fixed claim (asset) against the government, would secure the central bank's liquidity:[22]

The public, or the Government on behalf of the public, is indebted to the Bank in a sum of money larger than the whole amount of Bank notes in circulation; for the Government not only owes the Bank fifteen million, its original capital, which is lent at 3 per cent. interest, but also many more millions which are advanced on Exchequer bills, on half-pay and pension annuities, and on other securities. It is evident, therefore, that if the Government itself were to be the sole issuer of paper money instead of borrowing it of the Bank, the only difference would be with respect to the interest: the Bank would no longer receive interest and the Government would no longer pay it; but all other classes in the community would be exactly in the same position in which they now stand.

Ricardo was a man of many trades, economically and financially speaking. Ricardo was able to recognize and identify the problem presented through banking within regulations and debauched standards of approval at certain times. Ricardo knew that banks in rural areas as well as the Bank of England had increased note lending and overall lending in 1810. Through this, Ricardo proved subsequent changes in price level through the market was also affected and thus new regulations needed to be made available. Furthermore, Ricardo was able to understand and distinguish the socioeconomic makeup that created and established parameters around different classes within the economy. Ricardo advocated for the productive powers of labor to be held in high concern as the most influential of devices that played a role in the progression of the American Economy along with others. In addition, Ricardo made notable advancements in the concept build involving reactions in the open market when considering banking altercations, stock investments, or other considerable impacting events. Ricardo wanted to establish a firm ground between the bank and the control over monetary policy because there was power within the banking system that Ricardo believed needed to be considered carefully. In 1816, Ricardo said “In the present state of the law, they have the power, without any control whatever, of increasing or reducing the circulation in any degree they may think proper: a power which should neither be entrusted to the State itself, nor to anybody in it; as there can be no security for the uniformity in the value of the currency, when its augmentation or diminution depends solely on the will of the issuers.” Ricardo felt the circulation of money and the decision behind how much is available at any time should not be entrusted to either the State, or any individual. Ricardo argued for the most even distribution possible with the highest control readily available.

David Ricardo, The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

David Ricardo worked to fix the issues he felt were most concerning with Adam Smith’s Labour Theory of Value. Both men worked with the assumption that land, labour, and capital were the three basic factors of production. However, Smith narrowed in on labour as the determinant of value. Ricardo believes that with production having three factors it is impossible for only one of them to determine value on its own.[23] Ricardo illustrates his point by adapting Smith's deer beaver analogy to show that even when labour is the only factor of production the hardship and tools of the labour will drive a wedge in the relative value of the good. Due to his criticisms of the Labour Theory of Value George Stigler called his theory a "93% labor theory of value".[24]

Ricardo's most famous work is his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817). He advanced a labour theory of value:[25]

The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production, and not on the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour.

Ricardo's note to Section VI:[26]

Mr. Malthus appears to think that it is a part of my doctrine, that the cost and value of a thing be the same;—it is, if he means by cost, "cost of production" including profit.

Ricardo contributed to the development of theories of rent, wages, and profits. He defined rent as "the difference between the produce obtained by the employment of two equal quantities of capital and labour." Ricardo believed that the process of economic development, which increased land use and eventually led to the cultivation of poorer land, principally benefited landowners. According to Ricardo, such premium over "real social value" that is reaped due to ownership constitutes value to an individual but is at best[27] a paper monetary return to "society". The portion of such purely individual benefit that accrues to scarce resources Ricardo labels "rent".

In his Theory of Profit, Ricardo stated that as real wages increase, real profits decrease because the revenue from the sale of manufactured goods is split between profits and wages. He said in his Essay on Profits, "Profits depend on high or low wages, wages on the price of necessaries, and the price of necessaries chiefly on the price of food."

Ricardo's theory of international trade was reformulated by John Stuart Mill in 1844.[31] The term "comparative advantage" was introduced by J. S. Mill and his contemporaries.

John Stuart Mill started a neoclassical turn of international trade theory, i.e. his formulation was inherited by Alfred Marshall and others, and has both contributed to the resurrection of the anti-Ricardian concept of law of supply and demand, and induced the arrival of neoclassical theory of value.[32]

Ricardo's four magic numbers have long been interpreted as comparison of two ratios of labour (or other input in fixed supply) coefficients. This interpretation is now considered as overly simplistic by modern economists. The point was rediscovered by Roy J. Ruffin[33] in 2002 and re-examined and explained in detail in Andrea Maneschi[34] in 2004. The more flexible approach is now known as the new interpretation, despite having been previously mentioned by Piero Sraffa in 1930 and by Kenzo Yukizawa in 1974.[35] The new interpretation affords a totally new reading of Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation with regards to trade theory, although it does not change the mathematics of optimal resource allocation.[36]

Like Adam Smith, Ricardo was an opponent of protectionism for national economies, especially for agriculture. He believed that the British "Corn Laws"—imposing tariffs on agricultural products—ensured that less-productive domestic land would be cultivated and rents would be driven up (Case & Fair 1999, pp. 812, 813). Thus, profits would be directed toward landlords and away from the emerging industrial capitalists. Ricardo believed landlords tended to squander their wealth on luxuries, rather than invest. He believed the Corn Laws were leading to the stagnation of the British economy.[37] In 1846, his nephew John Lewis Ricardo, MP for Stoke-upon-Trent, advocated free trade and the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Modern empirical analysis of the Corn Laws yields mixed results.[38] Parliament repealed the Corn Laws in 1846.

Ricardo was concerned about the impact of technological change on labour in the short-term.[39] In 1821, he wrote that he had become "convinced that the substitution of machinery for human labour, is often very injurious to the interests of the class of labourers," and that "the opinion entertained by the labouring class, that the employment of machinery is frequently detrimental to their interests, is not founded on prejudice and error, but is conformable to the correct principles of political economy."[39] Ricardo's idea of technological change is now formulated in a modern form.[40]

Ricardo himself was the first to recognize that comparative advantage is a domain-specific theory, meaning that it applies only when certain conditions are met. Ricardo noted that the theory applies only in situations where capital is immobile. Regarding his famous example, he wrote:

it would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists [and consumers] of England… [that] the wine and cloth should both be made in Portugal [and that] the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth should be removed to Portugal for that purpose.[41]

Ricardo recognized that applying his theory in situations where capital was mobile would result in offshoring, and thereby economic decline and job loss. To correct for this, he argued that (i) "most men of property [will be] satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek[ing] a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations", and (ii) capital was functionally immobile.[41]

Ricardo's argument in favour of free trade has also been attacked by those who believe trade restriction can be necessary for the economic development of a nation. Utsa Patnaik claims that Ricardian theory of international trade contains a logical fallacy. Ricardo assumed that in both countries two goods are producible and actually are produced, but developed and underdeveloped countries often trade those goods which are not producible in their own country. In these cases, one cannot define which country has comparative advantage.[42]

Critics also argue that Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage is flawed in that it assumes production is continuous and absolute. In the real world, events outside the realm of human control (e.g. natural disasters) can disrupt production. In this case, specialisation could cripple a country that depends on imports from foreign, naturally disrupted countries. For example, if an industrially based country trades its manufactured goods with an agrarian country in exchange for agricultural products, a natural disaster in the agricultural country (e.g. drought) may cause the industrially based country to starve.

As Joan Robinson pointed out, following the opening of free trade with England, Portugal endured centuries of economic underdevelopment: "the imposition of free trade on Portugal killed off a promising textile industry and left her with a slow-growing export market for wine, while for England, exports of cotton cloth led to accumulation, mechanisation and the whole spiralling growth of the industrial revolution". Robinson argued that Ricardo's example required that economies be in static equilibrium positions with full employment and that there could not be a trade deficit or a trade surplus. These conditions, she wrote, were not relevant to the real world. She also argued that Ricardo's math did not take into account that some countries may be at different levels of development and that this raised the prospect of 'unequal exchange' which might hamper a country's development, as we saw in the case of Portugal.[43]

The development economist Ha-Joon Chang challenges the argument that free trade benefits every country:

Ricardo’s theory is absolutely right—within its narrow confines. His theory correctly says that, accepting their current levels of technology as given, it is better for countries to specialize in things that they are relatively better at. One cannot argue with that. His theory fails when a country wants to acquire more advanced technologies—that is, when it wants to develop its economy. It takes time and experience to absorb new technologies, so technologically backward producers need a period of protection from international competition during this period of learning. Such protection is costly, because the country is giving up the chance to import better and cheaper products. However, it is a price that has to be paid if it wants to develop advanced industries. Ricardo’s theory is, thus seen, for those who accept the status quo but not for those who want to change it.[44]

Ricardo's writings fascinated a number of early socialists in the 1820s, who thought his value theory had radical implications. They argued that, in view of labour theory of value, labour produces the entire product, and the profits capitalists get are a result of exploitations of workers.[46] These include Thomas Hodgskin, William Thompson, John Francis Bray, and Percy Ravenstone.

Georgists believe that rent, in the sense that Ricardo used, belongs to the community as a whole. Henry George was greatly influenced by Ricardo, and often cited him, including in his most famous work, Progress and Poverty from 1879. In the preface to the fourth edition he wrote: "What I have done in this book, if I have correctly solved the great problem I have sought to investigate, is, to unite the truth perceived by the school of Smith and Ricardo to the truth perceived by the school of Proudhon and Lasalle; to show that laissez faire (in its full true meaning) opens the way to a realization of the noble dreams of socialism; to identify social law with moral law, and to disprove ideas which in the minds of many cloud grand and elevating perceptions."[47]

After the rise of the 'neoclassical' school, Ricardo's influence declined temporarily. It was Piero Sraffa, the editor of the Collected Works of David Ricardo[48] and the author of seminal Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities,[49] who resurrected Ricardo as the originator of another strand of economic thought, which was effaced with the arrival of the neoclassical school. The new interpretation of Ricardo and Sraffa's criticism against the marginal theory of value gave rise to a new school, now named neo-Ricardian or Sraffian school. Major contributors to this school include Luigi Pasinetti (1930–), Pierangelo Garegnani (1930–2011), Ian Steedman (1941–), Geoffrey Harcourt (1931–2021), Heinz Kurz (1946–), Neri Salvadori (1951–), Pier Paolo Saviotti (–) among others. See also Neo-Ricardianism. The Neo-Ricardian school is sometimes seen to be a component of Post-Keynesian economics.

Inspired by Piero Sraffa, a new strand of trade theory emerged and was named neo-Ricardian trade theory. The main contributors include Ian Steedman and Stanley Metcalfe. They have criticised neoclassical international trade theory, namely the Heckscher–Ohlin model on the basis that the notion of capital as primary factor has no method of measuring it before the determination of profit rate (thus trapped in a logical vicious circle).[50][51] This was a second round of the Cambridge capital controversy, this time in the field of international trade.[52] Depoortère and Ravix judge that neo-Ricardian contribution failed without giving effective impact on neoclassical trade theory, because it could not offer "a genuine alternative approach from a classical point of view."[53]

Several distinctive groups have sprung out of the neo-Ricardian school. One is the evolutionary growth theory, developed notably by Luigi Pasinetti, J.S. Metcalfe, Pier Paolo Saviotti, and Koen Frenken and others.[54][55]

Pasinetti[56][57] argued that the demand for any commodity came to stagnate and frequently decline, demand saturation occurs. Introduction of new commodities (goods and services) is necessary to avoid economic stagnation.

Ricardo's idea was even expanded to the case of continuum of goods by Dornbusch, Fischer, and Samuelson[58] This formulation is employed for example by Matsuyama[59] and others.

Ricardian trade theory ordinarily assumes that the labour is the unique input. This is a deficiency as intermediate goods occupies now a great part of international trade. The situation changed after the appearance of Yoshinori Shiozawa's work of 2007.[60] He has succeeded to incorporate traded input goods in his model.[61] His theory became more useful by the discovery of new definition of regular international values (a couple of wage rates for countries and prices for products), because it is not defined as the normal vector at a facet of world production possibility set, which is the set where all countries enjoy full employment. The new definition is given in Shiozawa and Fujimoto (2018)[62] and in Shiozawa (2020).[40] Shiozawa's theory of international values is now the unique theory of international trade that can treat unemployment and input trade in a general form.

Yeats found that 30% of world trade in manufacturing is intermediate inputs.[63] Bardhan and Jafee found that intermediate inputs occupy 37 to 38% in the imports to the US for the years from 1992 to 1997, whereas the percentage of intrafirm trade grew from 43% in 1992 to 52% in 1997.[64]

Chris Edward includes Emmanuel's unequal exchange theory among variations of neo-Ricardian trade theory.[65] Arghiri Emmanuel argued that the Third World is poor because of the international exploitation of labour.[66]

The unequal exchange theory of trade has been influential to the (new) dependency theory.[67]