Brad, the problem I have with trying to find sources concerns the question itself. Perhaps there are some people who hold the view you describe, but they have not been on my list of people to consult for information about the shift to neoclassical economics. First, I do not think that economists -- or should I say the best economists -- ever held a strict labor theory of value. The theory of value in classical economics was contradictory or, more charitably, multi-faceted. No one in their right mind could deny the contribution of enterprise, or entrepreneurship, to the value of the product. Nor could one deny the contribution of what we today call human capital. Given this, the only way that one could consistently hold a labor theory of value was to maintain that production activity by human beings is the source of all value. But to maintain this, one would have had to define labor so broadly that it would have no applications to policy. Besides this, there was always the problem of explaining the value of things exchanged in markets that either had not been produced (items acquired through luck or chance) or that had been produced so long ago (e.g. works of art old gold, old diamonds, and old water) that the connection between the labor that caused them to be produced and their current market value could not be established to a rational mind. Second, I wonder about the legitimacy of linking the labor theory to a production theory. The perplexing question to a modern economist is how some of the great minds in HOT could have held a production theory. (One must assume that to the modern mind, the labor theory was an aberration.) The answer, I believe, lies with the beliefs of economists about who they were serving. They did not conceive of themselves as serving the interest of the "common man" which, in neoclassical economics, means the consumer. Many searched with futility for a natural law, or set of laws, to explain value. Third, and in conjunction with the second point, the consumption theory of value developed as a counter to the production theory. It is no coincidence, I suspect, that this development corresponded to the expansion of democracy and the gradual demise of rule by kings. The question arose: "In whose interest should economic policy be made?" And "whose interest is served by capitalism?" The producers, whoever they are taken to be, or the consumers? Practically all of the major founders of the subjective theory of value mentioned their efforts to combat socialism and/or Marxism, which in the mind of the populace was based on the labor theory of value. It was only long after the introduction of the subjective theory of value that some economists began to think of the possibility that, by causing the goods that consumers want to be produced, socialism might serve the interests of the "consumer" (Oscar Lange). Walras, Menger and Clark were concerned with socialism and, as I recall but am not certain, so was Jevons. Each of these independently invented models of an economic system in which consumer utility is the source of all value. Was subjective value (or marginal utility) theory a shift from the labor theory? Only, it seems to me, if we put all of the classical economists in the socialist or Marxist camp. Who subscribes to this view? With respect, Pat Gunning