<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Missemer, Antoine</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pottier, Antonin</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Revisiting Land, Labor and Capital in Neoclassical Economics</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Land Economics</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2025</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2025-05-30 09:01:22</style></date></pub-dates></dates><elocation-id><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">021225-0009</style></elocation-id><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"></style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%"></style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">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.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>