The Astonishing Conclusion of the Attribution Debate on the Law of Comparative Advantage

Abstract

The law of comparative advantage should not be attributed to anyone. This astonishing conclusion to the longstanding attribution debate on the law of comparative advantage comes from the recent demystification of David Ricardo’s famous numerical example in chapter 7 of the Principles. It debunked the conventional narrative that his “four magic numbers” were the first proof of this law by showing that Ricardo chose them according to a different rule for specialization. Likewise, as this article shows, there is no hint of the law of comparative advantage in the writings of John Stuart Mill, James Mill and Robert Torrens. The belief in the existence of this alleged law grew out of the confusion created by J. S. Mill’s misreading of the purpose, content and implications of Ricardo’s numerical example. In truth, the law of comparative advantage is nothing more than a mythological construct, so no one deserves credit for it.

Keywords: comparative advantage, David Ricardo, Robert Torrens, James Mill, John Stuart Mill, classical rule for specialization

JEL Classification: B12, B17, F10