ABSTRACT
Smith's distinction was misunderstood by most neoclassical authors, who tended to criticise it superficially. Bowley maintained that Smith's distinction had generated a great confusion. The classical economists were greatly influenced by Smith's view. Their analyses of accumulation and surplus imply that wealth is an aggregate of material goods. We have seen that many authors admitted the productiveness of immaterial labour. J. B. Say revived the concept proposed by Petty and other mercantilists of unproductive labour as labour in excess. Roscher observed that most authors had by then equalised useful with productive labour. But–Roscher stated–what matters is the proportion in a society between the different occupations and their respective degree of productivity. In the Palgrave Dictionary, Ethel Faraday recalled Roscher's considerations and revived the interpretation of unproductive labour as labour in excess. The Smithian concept of unproductive labour has from time to time been revived once again as a useful concept for understanding the economy.
