arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Revisiting Land, Labor, and Capital in Neoclassical Economics

Antoine Missemer & Antonin Pottier

Land Economics2025https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.37

What the paper says

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.

1 citation

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{antoine2025,
  title        = {{Revisiting Land, Labor, and Capital in Neoclassical Economics}},
  author       = {Antoine Missemer & Antonin Pottier},
  journal      = {Land Economics},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.4.021225-0009},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Revisiting Land, Labor, and Capital in Neoclassical Economics

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.