Thomas H. Kang

Backhouse deixa claro que a conexão que costumamos fazer entre marginalismo e laissez-faire não faz sentido. Nada como um pesquisador sério de HPE para nos explicar: "although Jevons started his career a supporter of laissez-faire, by his last book [...] he had arrived at a position where he [...] found more and more contexts where state intervention was justified [...]: public health, working conditions, education, transport, and many others. Marshall, the dominant economist of the following generation, saw a smaller role for state intervention than did Jevons. However, he still assigned a significative role to the state, going along with the wider movement towards support for progressive taxation [...]. Though his socialism was somwhat limited, Walras even described himself as a socialist. If there was a causal link between socialism and marginalism, therefore, it did not involve marginalism being adopted as a way of defending laissez-faire against socialist criticism. Marginal...

No capítulo intitulado "Class, Gender and Other Groups" do famoso livro "Inequality Reexamined", Amartya Sen (1992) discorre um pouco sobre um velho debate na história do pensamento econômico: quem afinal foi responsável pela produção? E quem merece receber a remuneração advinda dessa produção? Segundo Sen: Production is an interdependent process involving a joint use of many resources, and there is in general no clear way of deciding which resource has produced what. The concept of 'marginal product' of a resource is not really concerned with who has 'actually produced' what, but with guiding the allocation of resources by examining what would happen if one more unit of a resource were to be used (given all the other resources). To read in that counterfactual marginal story (what would happen if one more unit were applied, given everything else) an identification of who has 'in fact' produced what in the total output is to take the margin...