Basically, political economy and in particular Marxian economics, the concept of exchange value is traditionally employed to define one of the core aspects of a commodity. Some of the correlated concepts are price, use value and value. This shows that a product has; a value, an exchange value, use value and a price.
These attributes have an extensive history ranging from the era of Aristotle all the way to the period of David Ricardo. However, the entry of Marx concepts tilted the earlier concepts of exchange value.
From an economic perspective value is presented as the worth of either goods or services as set or determined by the existing markets. However, this observation does not hold the real formulation of what is in essence defined as value. For years economists as well as other social scientists have attempted to link and estimate the significance of value in relation to individual.
Similarly, this approach has over the years been extended to both goods and services being exchanged. Hence, such approach saw the development of such dynamic concepts as value in exchange as well as value in use. Thus, examining the argument presented by Kalman Applbaum in the article “Pharmaceutical Marketing” the concept of value is correlated to marketing and branding.
As the article asserts individuals are willing to pay higher prices for a brand than for a helpful product (Applbaum 0446). This concept is thus widely employed by pharmaceutical companies. The core objective of such approach is to create more earnings from a brand value than from the products. What this means is that brand value dictates what the greater society consumes.
Equally, this same approach is well illustrated by the manner coca cola brand is marketed. Basically, the brand value seems to be more profound than the product itself. This indicates that value can be measured as the set price of the given products. However, in regard to the argument presented by neoclassical economists, the value of any product is correlated to its price in relation to the free and competitive market.
And the value is thus determined by the demand of the product relative to the market supply. Examining the approach etched in the pharmaceutical industry it can be argued that the market demand surpass the supply and this has played a critical role in establishing what is in essence value. In relation to value in use as well as brand value, these firms have opted to embrace the concepts developed by neoclassical economists.
Thus, the elements of value are not linked to improving the innate consumption of humans but rather to attain the greatest profitable margin. The principal features which drive such an approach can be explained by the fact that brand value has over the years been used as the vehicle by corporations tied their hope (Applbaum 0447).
Hence, this has resulted in a situation whereby brand value supersede the need for satisfying the innate needs of humans through provision of what anthropologists defines as human value. The scope of brand value is thus echoed by Robert J Foster in his article “The WORK OF THE NEW ECONOMY: Consumers, Brand, and Value Creation.
The author observes that consumers tend to go for popular brands while the product manufacturers through elaborate marketing strategies exploit this window presented by brand value (Foster 708). Equally, this results in value creation which rests on brand value rather than on the product itself.
Though, Foster seems to suggest that the creation of new values begins with innovation; it is evident that the natural flow of market demands creates values. Thus, in an economic perspective the intensity of value is compactly determined by price as well as the price attached to products whether goods or services.
Another notable aspect examined by Foster revolves within the context of satisfying what is defined as surplus value. This concept is defined by Marxian theorists as a notion that attempts to define and explain market instability in regard to capitalism.
Thus, this posits that human labor forms the foundation of economic value. Thus, exploring the argument presented in the article we find that the concept of surplus value is definitely less examined. This can be linked to the fact that modern corporations are more concerned in making profits rather than satisfying the market values. Hence, the creation of brand values which are becoming more potent than value in use.
Comparing the explanations brought forward by both Foster and Applbaum it is evident that the concept of use value is less considered in the current society. This is elaborated in the manner diverse organization are anchoring on massive marketing without examining the aspects of use-value which is in essence the qualitative characteristic of value, that is, the solid manner in which a product satisfy human needs.
Perhaps that is why Graeber argues that when we are talking of use value we tend to think that we are dealing with definite attributes such as tons of, dozens of or meters of (442). Basically, he notes that use-value correlated to commodities becomes real when the given commodity or product is used or consumed. According to Graeber the concept of value is predominantly defined differently economists (443).
To his observations the concept of value have been restricted to market theories which are designed to produce mathematical satisfaction in relation to allocating limit resources while pursuing profits. In essence, the core argument in his article suggests that the concept of value is based on market convenience rather than on satisfying the human needs.
Hence he attempts to draw a parallel between what the anthropologists think of values and what economists take as value. From such an observation we are brought to the same sentiments voiced by Foster and Applbaum, exchange value seems to be the determinant factor in regard to what is assumed to be all inclusive.
Thus, the scope of neoclassical economy is brought as being the modern measure of value, this approach assumes that human approaches calls for allocation of available resources in pursuit of limited resources. Yet exploring the dynamics of use value, brand value as well as surplus value, this concept fails to satisfy the innate needs of man.
What this demonstrates is that the diverse economic projections witnessed have evolved to be restricted to the available resources or markets without exploring other regions of improving on value.
As noted in the article “The Work of the New Economy” the diverse attributes of what is defined as value can be said to be tied to profits This is also established by the massive marketing investments which have overtaken the noble cause of production.
It ought to be noted that marketing is essential in building brand value and this has gone to the limit of misleading the consumers who rarely identifies the use value of the given product or services.
Graeber, “Value” Foster, “The Work of the New Economy” Applbaum, “Pharmaceutical Marketing” have all accepted that the scope of value is money-priced. This seems to be due to the emerging market demands which are not fully satisfied.
Hence, the dynamics of value are not treated as processes of enhancing social well being rather the concepts of value are left to the domain of traditional social scientists. Thus, it becomes difficult to establish in essence what the core purpose of value is in the growing neoclassical economy.
In conclusion, it is evident that the scope of value is the most disputed feature in regard to political economics. This can be allied to the fact that the hypothesis of exchange which rests on the porch of science happens to be the bridge linking problems allied to economics to problems social in nature. And this happens to be the pointer of exiting from the theoretical manipulation affecting the whole sphere of human economy.
More so, its conceptual nature makes an objective approach quite complex for all those who have ventured into exploring the aspects of value in regard to human economy. Thus, the concept of market values in regard to exchange values though essential presents a mountain of queries than answers.
As established by Graeber the concept of value compactly left behind as the political economists are more concerned with developing attributes that are profit oriented in regard to labor, pricing and distribution. And this seems to be the foundation laid by those advocating for neoclassical economy, that is, capitalist markets.
Works Cited
Applbaum, Kalman.Pharmaceutical Marketing.Pls Medicine 3.4. (2006):0445-0447.
Foster, J Robert. The work of new economy. Cultural Anthropology 22.4 (2007):709- 729.
Graeber, David. Value: anthropological theories of value. A handbook of economic Anthropology. Oxford: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005.