About the IWGVT
The International Working Group on Value Theory was set up to provide for engagement and discussion between anyone working on value theory. We held an annual mini-conference every year from 1994 to 2004 hosted by the Eastern Economic Association and three symposia on value theory at Greenwich University between 2000 and 2005. This website holds the archives of papers either presented at these events, submitted by guest authors, or uploaded by the site editors
About this site
The website remains open for articles or papers relevant to the IWGVT's aims. Contributors are welcome to place documents on it, together with information about themselves that they would like to make available to other contributors, by mailing us. There is currently no facility for uploading documents directly, though we may add this in future.
If you have trouble or enquiries
difficult, with limited resources, to maintain a website of this complexity
and ensure that it is all functioning correctly. We do it because we think
that it meets a genuine requirement which is not met elsewhere. We don't have
the time or resources to check it out on all the browsers and their new
releases, and though we try to confirm that all the files download correctly,
this is a time-consuming business and as Karl once said 'mistakes are always
possible'. The easiest way for us to ensure we meet your needs is for you to
tell us when it goes wrong, particularly if you are unable to download or
read a file. Please contact us on email@example.com
with any information that will help us improve the site. And of course, webmasters
are always welcome so, if you'd like to lend a hand, get in
What is the IWGVT?
The IWGVT aims to promote pluraistic debate on concepts of value, seeking particularly—but not exclusively—to deepen the discussion of value concepts appropriate to dynamic analysis, and to end the unacceptable exclusion of the value theory of Karl Marx from existing debates.
The principal justification which economics offers for excluding its foremost critic is the proposition that, whatever the merits of his contribution on individual issues, his concept of value is invalid because it leads to internal inconsistencies. A growing body of independent research shows that this argument is no longer sustainable. We conclude that the discussion on value should re-open without the presupposition of any established standard, tradition or source of authority regarding either value or Marx.
The IWGVT defends no particular theory of value beyond arguing that the concept itself is indispensable. It does believe it is possible to assess the merits of contesting theories in debate. It seeks to create an atmosphere for this debate—which does not at present exist—such that all value theories, and all readings of value theorists, may discuss on an equal footing, referring in their support neither to the evidence of authority nor the conviction of doctrine but to reasoned and logical discussion based on textual evidence for readings and factual evidence for theories.
We are convinced that the de facto function of mainstream selection procedures is to exclude. Mainstream selection criteria are subjective and therefore discriminate against theories and arguments which the reviewers and editors hold in disfavor. Conversely, the following guidelines put forth some objective criteria to which, as we have learned and as we teach, good scholarship should conform.
It is common in academic discourse for proponents of one perspective to exclude, ignore, and deny legitimacy to opposing perspectives. Against this, the aim of the guidelines is to achieve a style of debate in which different perspectives engage with one another. We seek to foster a dialogue which is pluralist, because no interpretation of a theory, and no presentation of the facts, will be ruled out a priori, but also critical, because proponents of various perspectives will need to confront the alternatives.
Inform Readers of the Alternatives
An argument is not well-grounded unless the extant alternatives have been addressed. This means that all points of view are legitimate until proved otherwise. Engage and cite the views of others involved in debating the issues you are addressing, and treat them as equals acting in good faith. If you want other people to attend to what you are saying, then attend to what they are saying.
Don't Deny Legitimacy to Alternative Views
The aim of debate is clarity, not demolition. Avoid turns of phrase such as 'absurd', 'ridiculous', or 'impossible' to deny the legitimacy of opposing views, or phrases like 'as is widely known' or 'of course' to prove your own views are undeniable.
Identify the conceptual basis of "facts"
Economic data are not undisputed facts of nature but the result of a theoretical interpretation which should be explicit. 'The real output of the UK economy in 1994 was £570,722m' is a false claim. 'Output as measured by the UK NIPAs, deflated using the HMSO GDP deflator, was £570,722m' specifies the conceptual framework that produced the claim, and lets the reader trace the assertion back to its source.
Distinguish Original Texts from Subsequent Interpretations
You must distinguish clearly between an original text and subsequent interpretation. John Maynard Keynes did not say that equilibrium in the goods and money markets is given by the intersection of the IS and LM curves. This is Hicks' interpretation of Keynes. Karl Marx did not say that value is a vertically-integrated labour coefficient: this is the interpretation of Marx proposed by Linear Production Theory.
Argue from Evidence
Both statements about the world and interpretations of texts must be supported by empirical evidence, from the world or from the text, respectively. Appeals either to authority or to popular wisdom do not constitute evidence. Avoid Ad Hominem reasoning: don’t try to substantiate or refute an argument by reference to any characteristic of the person presenting it.
Distinguish Between Internal Inconsistency, Interpretive Difficulties, and Disagreement
If you justify your approach by asserting that opposing views are inconsistent, you are declaring they cannot possibly be right and you hence exclude them from discussion. If you have only demonstrated the inconsistency of your own reading of these views, then your proof is false because you have not exhausted the alternatives; but you have closed down the dialogue. If you want to say a view is inconsistent, provide evidence that it cannot be interpreted otherwise. Unless you can do this, instead say that you have difficulty making sense of the argument, or that you disagree with it, as the case may be.
Characterize Schools of Thought in the Preferred Manner
Do not use a characterisation for the purpose of dismissal. In debate, refer to other schools of thought by the name they prefer (for example, 'surplus approach' in preference to 'neoricardian') unless you are including them in a wider grouping with no recognised name. In the latter case, try to provide an accurate, descriptive term.