===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
Michael Perelman's argument that 'value in use' refers to specific uses  
which are qualitatively different between goods is a correct summary of  
Marx's usage but not of Smith's. The passage from the Wealth of Nations  
that Michael Robison refers to reads: 
 
'The word value, it is to be observed, has two different 
meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular 
object, and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which 
the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called 
"value in use"; the other, "value in exchange." The things which 
have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value 
in exchange.' 
 
This clearly implies a notion of utility/value in use which is in some  
sense quantifiable and comparable betwen different goods (but does not,  
of course, mean that Smith's very vague notion is the same as later  
neoclassical concepts of utility - in particular, I am not aware of  
any link in Smith between utility/value in use and subjective  
preferences).  
 
But neither 'value in use' nor 'utility' played any substantial role  
in the Wealth of Nations. The phrase 'value in use' is used only in the  
few pages on value cited above, while 'utility' appears a few times  
elsewhere as a synonym for 'usefulness' with no specific theoretical  
significance (that I can detect). The precious metals have 'utility,  
beauty, and scarcity', for example. It would not be wise to make much  
rest on this casual usage. Some words have specific meanings within a  
theoretical scheme, others are just part of the general resources of  
the language which a writer like Smith could use without any special  
significance. 
---------------------- 
Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) 
University of Bristol, Department of Economics 
 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]