第24章 《佃農理論》英語原著 (18)
佛系王妃的蘇爽人生 拒嫁豪門:天價契約妻 誘愛99天:司少的天價寶貝 謊顏 豪門奪愛之偷心遊戲 鬼才兒子億萬老婆 洪荒古神 喜歡到想要掰彎你 極道保鏢 終極聖靈
第24章 《佃農理論》英語原著 (18)
Whenthecultivatorhastogivetohislandlordhalfofthereturnstoeachdoseofcapitalandlaborthatheappliestotheland,itwillnotbetohisinteresttoapplyanydosesthetotalreturntowhichislessthantwiceenoughtorewardhim.If,then,heisfreetocultivateashechooses,hewillcultivatefarlessintensivelythanontheEnglishplan[fixedrent]；hewillapplyonlysomuchcapitalandlaboraswillgivehimreturnsmorethantwiceenoughtorepayhimself:sothathislandlordwillgetasmallershareevenofthosereturnsthanhewouldhaveontheplanofafixedpayment.[4]
WhatisimportanthereisthatMarshallsawthataccordingtothisanalysisthesharetenantwillbegettingaresidualreturnandthelandlordwillbegettingasmallerrentalinethanunderfixedrent.WhatisstrangeisthatMarshalldidnotquestionwhythelandlorddoesnotchooseinsteadafixedrentcontractorsellinghislandownershiptothetenantoutright.[5]AndwhatisnaturalisthatMarshallwasreluctanttoletthetenant'sresidualearningremainunexplained:
Ifthetenanthasnofixityoftenure,thelandlordcandeliberatelyandfreelyarrangetheamountofcapitalandlaborsuppliedbythetenantandtheamountofcapitalsuppliedbyhimselftosuittheexigenciesofeachspecialcase.[6]
Marshall'sviewwasthatthemetayertenant"haspracticalfixityoftenure,"[7]andhereferredtoanarticlebyHenryHiggs.[8]Higgsnotedthattherentalsharesdodiffer,andthat"rigidasmetayermayatfirstsightseemtobe,itissusceptibleofconsiderableelasticity."[9]Henonethelesssharedthe"custom"ideawithSismondiandMill.HiggsbasedhisjudgmentonanempiricalsurveyhehadconductedinFrance,whichunfortunatelyinvolvedasampleofonlyasinglefarm.[10]Itisthenotionof"fixityoftenure,"perhaps,thatledMarshalltomentionthepossibilityofadjustmentsonlyinafootnote:
Ifthelandlordcontrolstheamount[ofcapital]freelyandinhisowninterest,andcanbargainwithhistenantastotheamountoflaborheapplies,itcanbeprovedgeometricallythathewillsoadjustitastoforcethetenanttocultivatethelandjustasintensivelyashewouldundertheEnglishtenure[fixedrent]；andhissharewillthenbethesameasunderit.[11]
Marshallprovidednogeometricproof,anditisaninterestingconjecturewhetherhewouldhavealteredthisfootnotehadhedoneso.Thisconjectureisinterestingbecausetheresultsheconceivedarecorrectonlyincertainspecialcases,butasamatterofgeneralitytheyareincorrect.TheyareincorrectbecauseMarshalldidnotallowtherentalpercentagetovary.[12]Letmeexplain.FollowingMarshall,supposethehorizontalaxisoffigure4measuresnotonlylaborbutnonlandinputsingeneral（andassumeawaytheassociatedsubstitutionproblem）.Supposealsotheinitialamountofnonlandinputsisattx.Givenacertain（notany）rentalpercentage,andgiventhatthelandlordhasbeenprovidingasufficientlylargeamountofnonland"capital"input,thenhemayadjustthenonlandinputsprovidedbyeithercontractingpartysothat（a）therentalineundersharerentisthesameasunderfixedrentand（b）thetenant'sresidualearningisexhausted-withoutvaryingthegivenrentalpercentage.Assuch,Marshalliscorrect.Butsupposethatthetenantistopro-videallthenonlandinputs,orthatthelandlordhasbeenprovid-ingapartofthenonlandinputsbuttheamountistoosmall;then,exceptbyaccident,therentalpercentagemustbevaried（inadditiontoadjustingnonlandinputsoverland）toobtaintheresultsMarshallvisualized.Toviewtheproblemfromanotherangle:giventheratioofnonlandinputstolandthatisconsistentwithwealthmaximization,andgiventhattherelativesharesofnonlandinputscontributedbythecontractingpartiesarestipulated,thereexistsoneandonlyonerentalpercentagewhichisconsistentwithequilibrium.[13]Thisdifficultparagraphwillbeeclearerwhenweetothenextsection.
ItshouldbenotedthatMarshall,likeSmith,Jones,andMillbeforehim,attemptedto"rank"variouslandtenurearrangementsaccordingtosomenotionofeconomicefficiency.[14]Theydidnottackletheissuebyidentifyingaspecificsetofpropertyrightconstraintssubjecttowhichseveralformsoflandtenurearrangementsmayimplythesameresourceuse.Intheirdiscussionsofsharetenancy,thefreelyalienablerightsimplicitintheiranalysessuggestthattheconstraintofprivatepropertyrightswasassumed.[15]ButwhereasSmithandJonesviewedasharelease,thoughwasteful,astransitional.MillandMarshalllaidtheblameon"custom."Smith'spredictionthatfixedrentswouldreplacesharerentshadfailedtoetrue;and,asnotedearlier,thetermsofasharecontractmightyieldtheimpressionofbeingcustomarilyfixed.
Amongcontemporarywriterswhoperformedsimilar"rank-ings"andalsoreliedonthenotionof"custom"areRainerSchic-kele[16]andEarlO.Heady.[17]SchickeleandHeadyfurtheredthetaxapproachintheiranalysesofasharelease,butinawaysomewhatdifferentfromMarshall.Usingadiagramidenticaltofigure4,theyconcludedthatequilibriumisatpoints,wherethemarginaltenantcostequalsthemarginaltenantreceipt;thatis,
=
（1-r）.Theamountoftenantinputmittedwillbet1.AccordingtoSchickele,iftenantinputisincreasedfromt1tot2,thenareaABCrepresentsa"present"fromthetenanttothelandowner[18]—sincetheaddedtenantreceipt（areat1ACt2）islessthantheaddedtenantcost（areat1ABt2）bythisamount.Schickeledidnot,however,proceedwiththeparadox:iftenantinputisatt1,thenareaMEA（tenant'sresidualearning）representsa"present"fromthelandownertothetenant.Itfollowsfromthislineofreasoningthatiftenantinputissomewherebetweent1andt2,bothpartieswillbeoffering"presents"toeachother!