After the marginal revolution, utility expanded the possible scope of production beyond material goods to immaterial services as well.

After the marginal revolution, utility expanded the possible scope of production beyond material goods to immaterial services as well.

• Classical political economy drew the production boundary materially: productive labour created, or was necessary to create, material wealth or vendible commodities.
• Utility was already a highly prevalent productivity frame by 1890–1909: around 70% of all sampled textbooks and about 78% of texts discussing the boundary used it; after 1909 the range was 89–100%, and all boundary-discussing texts in 1910–1944 used it.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the marginal revolution made utility even more central to economic discourse

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p2

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the marginal revolution made utility even more central to economic discourse

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p2

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the marginal revolution made utility even more central to economic discourse

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p2
• A third frame treated intended utility creation as unproductive when it failed: labour was unproductive when wasted, misdirected, or inefficient, including activities such as competitive advertising that did not ultimately create utility.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  only misdirected or inefficient labor is unproductive

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p5

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  only misdirected or inefficient labor is unproductive

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p5

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  only misdirected or inefficient labor is unproductive

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p5
• The failed-or-unrealized-utility frame had more adherents than the moral frame but did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  it ultimately did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p6

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  it ultimately did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p6

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  it ultimately did not survive into the mid-twentieth century.

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p6
• The marginal revolution shifted economics' object of knowledge from material wealth to utility, understood as the capacity of material objects or immaterial services to satisfy desires, wants, or needs.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the object of knowledge for economists shifted from the production and distribution of wealth , where wealth is conceived of as material goods, to the satisfaction of utility

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p1

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the object of knowledge for economists shifted from the production and distribution of wealth , where wealth is conceived of as material goods, to the satisfaction of utility

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p1

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the object of knowledge for economists shifted from the production and distribution of wealth , where wealth is conceived of as material goods, to the satisfaction of utility

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p1
• A generic utilities frame defined production simply as the creation of utility, without specifying what counts as utility or how to measure it.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  Any activity which contributes to the creation of utilities in either of these ways is production

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p3

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  Any activity which contributes to the creation of utilities in either of these ways is production

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p3

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  Any activity which contributes to the creation of utilities in either of these ways is production

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p3
• A small minority used a moral utilities framework, excluding activities that created or satisfied immoral utilities and evaluating utility against social goals such as national prosperity; this approach was never dominant and Carver was the last sampled economist to use it.
  Evidence for this premise (3)

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the framing of utility around a moral calculus was never dominant

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p4

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the framing of utility around a moral calculus was never dominant

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p4

  What counts as productive? Redefining ‘producers’ in economic discourse, 1890–1960 — Post-marginal-revolution contestation: utility expands the producer boundary, but competing frames persist

  the framing of utility around a moral calculus was never dominant

  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2404355#unit-5-p4

These are challenges this argument’s reasoning pattern must still withstand. Answering them on Isonomia strengthens the argument.

• Could a different cause produce the same effect E in this case?Open
• Is there a plausible causal mechanism by which C could bring about E?Open
• How strong is the causal generalization linking C to E? Are there documented cases where C does not produce E?Open
• Are there intervening or confounding factors that could interfere with the causal chain from C to E?Open
• Is the apparent link between C and E merely a post hoc correlation rather than a causal relation?Open

Cited by 1 · 0 contests