Revisiting Land, Labor and Capital in Neoclassical Economics

Abstract

It is usually argued that the advent of neoclassical economics led to the consideration of only two factors of production (capital and labor) instead of three (capital, labor and land). From the 1880s to the 1920s, land and natural resources would have been marginalized and left to applied fields such as land economics. This article revisits this episode. Theoretically speaking, it shows that there was no requirement in marginal productivity theories to subsume land into capital. Historically speaking, it demonstrates that alternatives did exist, within American neoclassicism, to the neglect of land and natural resources, providing inspiration for today’s research.