Revisiting Land, Labor, and Capital in Neoclassical Economics
重新审视了新古典经济学将土地和自然资源边缘化的历史，指出边际生产力理论并未要求将土地归入资本，且美国新古典主义内部存在重视土地和自然资源的替代路径，为当今研究提供启示。
<h3>Abstract</h3> 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.