Conclusion

It is clear from the literature that has been surveyed in Part II of this study that debate on the theory of value and distribution in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations has been very lively for almost two centuries, and is likely to continue. It is entirely appropriate that the work of one of the greatest ever economists should be re-read and actively debated as economic theory develops and our understanding of its history changes. The central purpose of this study has been to examine the partly conflicting and partly complementary interpretations advanced by Dobb and Hollander by means of a detailed study of the Wealth of Nations. Both Dobb and Hollander advance interpretations which stress Smith’s role in the development of value and distribution theory. Consequently, the secondary aim of this study has been to demonstrate the importance of adopting analytically correct definitions of the theories of value and distribution when considering Smith’s work in relation to them or assessing his role in their development.1