Mariana Mazzucato, The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy

TL;DR

This review essay assesses Mariana Mazzucato's *The Value of Everything* (2018), praising its historical account of how neoclassical value theory became institutionalized in market and government practices while arguing that the book fails to supply the alternative theory of value its critique requires. The reviewers conclude that Mazzucato's remedy—"telling different stories about value"—is under-theorized because she never explains how economic frameworks become institutionalized.

Key findings

The review credits Mazzucato with showing how the neoclassical equation of value with market price was embedded in practices such as GDP accounting and with demonstrating the socially and politically problematic consequences of that equation. It endorses her claim that there is "something inherently wrong with linking economic value only to the market price mechanism," and her diagnosis that the dominance of neoclassical theory explains why advanced economies rely on this notion of value across institutional settings. The reviewers' central criticism is that Mazzucato "does not propose an alternative theory of value" and deliberately avoids doing so, leaving her distinction between productive and extractive activity resting only on "the mere presumption that growth and innovation (both rather vaguely defined) are good things." They also fault her for not showing "through what mechanisms and dynamics the neoclassical approach and its theory of value became influential and incorporated into social and political practices," beyond vague remarks about lobbying by powerful groups. The review closes by suggesting Mazzucato may omit an alternative theory because she sees that task as belonging to politics rather than economic theory.

Methods

A book review essay (Comptes rendus) published in *Œconomia* 10-2 (2020), pp. 369–373, covering Mazzucato's 384-page book (PublicAffairs, 2018). No empirical data or formal analysis; the piece proceeds by summarizing the book's chapter-by-chapter argument (chapters 1–2 on the history of value theory, chapters 3–7 on national accounting, finance, asset management, financialization, and the innovation economy) and then offering critical commentary. The reviewers' assessment is organized around two questions: where Mazzucato succeeds and what remains undertheorized in her proposal.

Limitations

The reviewers state that Mazzucato does not offer or admit the need for an alternative theory of value, does not clarify whether the remedy is a return to classical analysis or something new, and does not recognize that advocating an alternative view of value may require fundamental changes in economic theorizing. They add that her suggestions are "not grounded in any account of how economic frameworks become institutionalized," and that "telling other stories about value" is insufficient without specifying who tells them, how, in which contexts, and what value should mean. Evident from the text: as a review essay, the piece offers no independent evidence or empirical test of its own claims about Mazzucato's book, and its judgments rest on the reviewers' reading rather than on systematic analysis.