马克思还是李嘉图——对劳动价值论定量检验方法的一个温和批评  

Marx or Ricardo?——A Mild Critique on the Quantitative Testing of the Labor Theory of Value

作　　者：裴宏 潘东奇 PEI Hong;PAN Dongqi(School of Economics and Management,Fuzhou University,Fuzhou,Fujian,China)

机构地区：[1]福州大学经济与管理学院

出　　处：《政治经济学季刊》2024年第3期98-133,共36页Political Economy Quarterly

摘　　要：本文研究了从李嘉图到马歇尔的经济学家对劳动价值论的理解,认为古典劳动价值论的实质是生产费用论,和马克思劳动价值论存在本质差异。但人们对马克思“价值规律”的理解仍不自觉地受到古典经济学尤其是李嘉图的影响。现有劳动价值论的标准模型,实际上是一个李嘉图化了的马克思劳动价值论模型。而对劳动价值论的经验研究,检验的其实是古典经济学的“工资费用价格”而非“劳动价值”,计算结果依赖于投入产出表的数据特征而非一般性的理论关系。本文使用中国1992—2020年投入产出表,计算了多种费用价格,发现平均而言“工资费用价格”最贴近市场价格,但和其他费用价格相比并没有本质差异。总之,现有方法对劳动价值论的检验,证明的是古典的而非马克思的劳动价值论。This paper examines the understanding of the labor theory of value by economists from Ricardo to Marshall,and argues that the essence of the labor theory of value in classical economics is the production expenses theory of value,which is fundamentally different from Marx's labor theory of value.However,the understanding of Marx's“law of value”is still unconsciously influenced by classical economics,especially Ricardo.The standard model of the Marx's labor theory of value is actually a Ricardianized one.Empirical research on the labor theory of value tests the“price of production expense of wages”rather than the“labor value”,and the results depends on the data features of the input⁃output table rather than the general theoretical relationship.This paper uses China's 1992—2020 input⁃output table to calculate three kinds of prices of production expenses,and finds that on average“price of production expense of wages”are closest to market prices,but are not fundamentally different from the other two kinds of prices of production expense.In sum,the test of the labor theory of value demonstrates a classical rather than a Marxian labor theory of value.

关 键 词：劳动价值论 古典经济学 投入产出表 

分 类 号：F01[经济管理—政治经济学]