Pub Date : 2021-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1996060
Geoffrey Brooke, Tony Endres
{"title":"Note from the Editors","authors":"Geoffrey Brooke, Tony Endres","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1996060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1996060","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133479994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-24DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1964192
W. Coleman
Colin Clark is one of the more puzzling – and frustrating! – figures in the history of twentieth-century economics. This perplexing figure’s life and works have now been the object of an assiduously researched study by Alex Millmow. This biographer acquits himself well, but the present reader is left only slightly less puzzled, and only somewhat more interested, in Colin Clark. Clark was born in 1905 to a Scottish jam manufacturer, who, although living in Plymouth, liked to dress young Colin in a kilt on Sundays. Schooled on a scholarship to Winchester College, Clark read chemistry at Brasenose College, Oxford. On graduation, politics beckoned keenly, and Clark stood as a Labour candidate in the general elections of 1929, 1931 and 1935. By then Keynes’s data man, and under the wing of Hugh Dalton, Clark was well-positioned to stand again for the House of Commons in 1945, win, and enjoy a career similar to that of his fellow Wykehamist-economist-Labourites Richard Crossman and Hugh Gaitskell. Instead, in 1937 he emigrated to Australia, denounced Fabianism as a ‘cranky religious movement’, became a Catholic, adopted an ‘agrarian’ and ‘natalist’ policy outlook, and devoted his time to wide-ranging statistical studies, which both stimulated by their contentiousness and irritated by their carelessness. In postwar Australia, no longer Keynes’s little Mercury winging the precious message to a distant satellite, but now the economic adjunct of B. A. Santamaria, Clark could not obtain academic employment. But thanks to the suggestion of Walter Oakeshott, the medievalist, he secured appointment as director of Oxford’s Agricultural Economics Research Institute. On his return to Oxford, ‘many of his old friends and mentors, Dalton, Jay, Gaitskell ... could not comprehend the enormous ideological change in him’ (214). Rather like Glanvill’s Gypsy Scholar three centuries before, his old ‘friends enquire[d] how he came to lead so odd a life as that was, and to join himself with such a cheating beggarly company’. Finding the Institute ‘intellectually stultifying’, Clark gladly became an honorary research fellow at Monash University, and there seemed to finally find a cheerful perch. Three questions loom.
科林·克拉克是其中一个更令人困惑和沮丧的人!——二十世纪经济学史上的人物。这个令人费解的人物的生活和作品现在已经成为亚历克斯·米尔莫刻苦研究的对象。这位传记作者做得很好，但现在的读者对科林·克拉克的困惑只是稍微少了一些，只是稍微感兴趣了一些。克拉克于1905年出生在一个苏格兰果酱制造商的家庭，虽然他住在普利茅斯，但他喜欢在星期天给小科林穿上苏格兰短裙。克拉克获得温彻斯特学院(Winchester College)的奖学金，在牛津大学布拉塞诺斯学院(Brasenose College)学习化学。毕业时，政治向他招手，克拉克作为工党候选人参加了1929年、1931年和1935年的大选。到那时，凯恩斯的数据专家，在休·道尔顿的羽翼下，克拉克已经做好了准备，在1945年再次竞选下议院议员，并赢得了胜利，并享受了与他的同僚维克哈姆斯特经济学家工党成员理查德·克罗斯曼和休·盖茨克尔相似的职业生涯。相反，他在1937年移居澳大利亚，谴责费边主义是“古怪的宗教运动”，成为一名天主教徒，采取了“农业”和“自然主义”的政策观点，并把时间花在了广泛的统计研究上，这些研究既受到了他们的争论的刺激，也被他们的粗心所激怒。在战后的澳大利亚，不再是凯恩斯的小水星向遥远的卫星传递宝贵的信息，而是现在是圣玛丽亚大学的经济附属物，克拉克无法获得学术工作。但由于中世纪学者沃尔特•奥克肖特(Walter Oakeshott)的建议，他被任命为牛津农业经济研究所(Agricultural Economics Research Institute)所长。回到牛津后，“他的许多老朋友和导师，道尔顿、杰伊、盖茨克尔……无法理解他思想上的巨大变化”(214)。就像三个世纪前格兰维尔的《吉普赛学者》一样，他的老朋友们问他是如何过着如此奇怪的生活，并加入这样一个欺骗的乞丐团体的。克拉克发现该研究所“在智力上很无聊”，于是欣然成为莫纳什大学的荣誉研究员，似乎终于在那里找到了一个令人愉快的栖身之处。三个问题隐现。
{"title":"The Gypsy Economist. The Life and Times of Colin Clark","authors":"W. Coleman","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1964192","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1964192","url":null,"abstract":"Colin Clark is one of the more puzzling – and frustrating! – figures in the history of twentieth-century economics. This perplexing figure’s life and works have now been the object of an assiduously researched study by Alex Millmow. This biographer acquits himself well, but the present reader is left only slightly less puzzled, and only somewhat more interested, in Colin Clark. Clark was born in 1905 to a Scottish jam manufacturer, who, although living in Plymouth, liked to dress young Colin in a kilt on Sundays. Schooled on a scholarship to Winchester College, Clark read chemistry at Brasenose College, Oxford. On graduation, politics beckoned keenly, and Clark stood as a Labour candidate in the general elections of 1929, 1931 and 1935. By then Keynes’s data man, and under the wing of Hugh Dalton, Clark was well-positioned to stand again for the House of Commons in 1945, win, and enjoy a career similar to that of his fellow Wykehamist-economist-Labourites Richard Crossman and Hugh Gaitskell. Instead, in 1937 he emigrated to Australia, denounced Fabianism as a ‘cranky religious movement’, became a Catholic, adopted an ‘agrarian’ and ‘natalist’ policy outlook, and devoted his time to wide-ranging statistical studies, which both stimulated by their contentiousness and irritated by their carelessness. In postwar Australia, no longer Keynes’s little Mercury winging the precious message to a distant satellite, but now the economic adjunct of B. A. Santamaria, Clark could not obtain academic employment. But thanks to the suggestion of Walter Oakeshott, the medievalist, he secured appointment as director of Oxford’s Agricultural Economics Research Institute. On his return to Oxford, ‘many of his old friends and mentors, Dalton, Jay, Gaitskell ... could not comprehend the enormous ideological change in him’ (214). Rather like Glanvill’s Gypsy Scholar three centuries before, his old ‘friends enquire[d] how he came to lead so odd a life as that was, and to join himself with such a cheating beggarly company’. Finding the Institute ‘intellectually stultifying’, Clark gladly became an honorary research fellow at Monash University, and there seemed to finally find a cheerful perch. Three questions loom.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123318841","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-18DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1950385
K. Button
Abstract Several recent papers have focused on Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow’s 1960 article applying the Phillips curve to the US. These interactions have been partly technical in nature, but have also involved discussion of the use of the curve in US policy making and its interpretation. The attention here is on the contribution of Samuelson and Solow’s work in light of prior analysis of the US situation by the English economist A. J. Brown. Much of what Samuelson and Solow argue was already understood by Brown, and his empirical analysis was at least as insightful as theirs.
最近的几篇论文集中讨论了保罗·萨缪尔森和罗伯特·索洛在1960年发表的将菲利普斯曲线应用于美国的文章。这些互动在一定程度上是技术性的，但也涉及到在美国政策制定中使用曲线及其解释的讨论。这里关注的是萨缪尔森和索洛的工作对英国经济学家布朗(A. J. Brown)先前对美国形势的分析的贡献。萨缪尔森和索洛的许多观点已经被布朗所理解，他的实证分析至少和他们的一样有见地。
{"title":"A. J. Brown and the US Phillips Curve: A Comment","authors":"K. Button","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1950385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1950385","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Several recent papers have focused on Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow’s 1960 article applying the Phillips curve to the US. These interactions have been partly technical in nature, but have also involved discussion of the use of the curve in US policy making and its interpretation. The attention here is on the contribution of Samuelson and Solow’s work in light of prior analysis of the US situation by the English economist A. J. Brown. Much of what Samuelson and Solow argue was already understood by Brown, and his empirical analysis was at least as insightful as theirs.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133516299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-26DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1952004
William Jefferies
Abstract This article explains that in the Grundrisse Marx considered that the discontinuity in his transformation procedure was no logical inconsistency, but a necessary feature of the disproportionate transition to capitalist production dominated by the accumulation of fixed capital. Pavel Maksakovsky, a Soviet Red Professor in the 1920s, developed a theory of ‘conjuncture’ which probably discovered this discontinuity independently. Marx’s solution to the transformation problem in Capital III did not emphasize this discontinuity. It was criticized by von Bortkiewicz as mathematically flawed and so logically inconsistent and false. Marx and Maksakovsky showed that the discontinuity was a necessary part of the transition from values to prices of production. This explanation has been almost totally ignored in the debate on the transformation problem.
{"title":"Marx’s Forgotten Transformation Solution: The Transformation of Values into Prices of Production in Marx’s Grundrisse and Maksakovsky’s The Capitalist Cycle","authors":"William Jefferies","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1952004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1952004","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explains that in the Grundrisse Marx considered that the discontinuity in his transformation procedure was no logical inconsistency, but a necessary feature of the disproportionate transition to capitalist production dominated by the accumulation of fixed capital. Pavel Maksakovsky, a Soviet Red Professor in the 1920s, developed a theory of ‘conjuncture’ which probably discovered this discontinuity independently. Marx’s solution to the transformation problem in Capital III did not emphasize this discontinuity. It was criticized by von Bortkiewicz as mathematically flawed and so logically inconsistent and false. Marx and Maksakovsky showed that the discontinuity was a necessary part of the transition from values to prices of production. This explanation has been almost totally ignored in the debate on the transformation problem.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130400108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-21DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-42925-6
T. Aspromourgos
{"title":"New Perspectives on Political Economy and Its History","authors":"T. Aspromourgos","doi":"10.1007/978-3-030-42925-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42925-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117032870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-20DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1949171
Jill Trinh, M. McLure
Abstract On the face of it, Pareto’s law and Piketty’s law are inconsistent, with Pareto arguing that real per capita economic growth is the solution to the problem of income inequality and Piketty arguing for redistribution to be funded from a wealth tax. In this paper we make three contributions. First, we establish that Piketty’s and Pareto’s laws are essentially the same economic law when the same definition of inequality is adopted by the two scholars. Second, in highlighting the relationship between Pareto’s α and Piketty’s is monotonic, we show that Piketty’s criticism of Pareto for assuming a constant α across the income range would also apply in similar measure to his own law. Third, given the essential equivalence of Pareto’s law and Piketty’s law, we reflect on Piketty’s curious accusation that Pareto undertook his analysis of the relationship between α and inequality in ‘bad faith’.
{"title":"Piketty’s Law Is Pareto’s Law: ‘Bad Faith’ in the Analysis of Income Inequality?","authors":"Jill Trinh, M. McLure","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1949171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1949171","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On the face of it, Pareto’s law and Piketty’s law are inconsistent, with Pareto arguing that real per capita economic growth is the solution to the problem of income inequality and Piketty arguing for redistribution to be funded from a wealth tax. In this paper we make three contributions. First, we establish that Piketty’s and Pareto’s laws are essentially the same economic law when the same definition of inequality is adopted by the two scholars. Second, in highlighting the relationship between Pareto’s α and Piketty’s is monotonic, we show that Piketty’s criticism of Pareto for assuming a constant α across the income range would also apply in similar measure to his own law. Third, given the essential equivalence of Pareto’s law and Piketty’s law, we reflect on Piketty’s curious accusation that Pareto undertook his analysis of the relationship between α and inequality in ‘bad faith’.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128074337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-20DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1948734
Nobuhiko Nakazawa, Yoshifumi Ozawa
Abstract In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus quotes from Milton’s Paradise Lost, but since the quotation is merely a single line, and because there is neither explanation of its context nor mention of the sourced author or work, it has rarely attracted much scholarly attention. However, as this quotation was included in the first edition and persisted to the sixth edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population, it seems to be of some import. In this paper, with this citation as a clue, we will examine the intertextuality between Paradise Lost and An Essay on the Principle of Population and show the possibility that the former provided not insignificant inspiration for the latter.
{"title":"Milton’s Paradise Lost and Malthus’s An Essay on the Principle of Population: A Neglected Intertextuality","authors":"Nobuhiko Nakazawa, Yoshifumi Ozawa","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1948734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1948734","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In An Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus quotes from Milton’s Paradise Lost, but since the quotation is merely a single line, and because there is neither explanation of its context nor mention of the sourced author or work, it has rarely attracted much scholarly attention. However, as this quotation was included in the first edition and persisted to the sixth edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population, it seems to be of some import. In this paper, with this citation as a clue, we will examine the intertextuality between Paradise Lost and An Essay on the Principle of Population and show the possibility that the former provided not insignificant inspiration for the latter.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129223219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-07-09DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1949533
Franck Jovanovic
Abstract Several authors have been interested in Ludwig Hamburger’s attempt to analyse business cycles with a nonlinear endogenous model in the early 1930s. Indeed, Hamburger was one of the first, if not the first, to suggest applying Van der Pol’s relaxation oscillations to business cycles. Ragnar Frisch was interested in his work when he was working on his 1933 seminal paper on a propagation-impulse model, in which we find some references to this suggestion. Despite the interest in Hamburger’s work, the breadth, scope and impact of his works remain unknown and misunderstood, for both historians of economics and sciences. Moreover, several errors, such as the reason why Hamburger did not continue his original work in economics, exist in the economic literature concerning this author and the diffusion of his work in economics. The present work provides a biography of Ludwig Hamburger and corrects the errors we find in the literature. It also sheds new light on the origins of his attempt to analyse business cycles with a nonlinear endogenous model.
{"title":"Ludwig Hamburger (1890–1968): From Relaxation Oscillations to Business Cycles","authors":"Franck Jovanovic","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1949533","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1949533","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Several authors have been interested in Ludwig Hamburger’s attempt to analyse business cycles with a nonlinear endogenous model in the early 1930s. Indeed, Hamburger was one of the first, if not the first, to suggest applying Van der Pol’s relaxation oscillations to business cycles. Ragnar Frisch was interested in his work when he was working on his 1933 seminal paper on a propagation-impulse model, in which we find some references to this suggestion. Despite the interest in Hamburger’s work, the breadth, scope and impact of his works remain unknown and misunderstood, for both historians of economics and sciences. Moreover, several errors, such as the reason why Hamburger did not continue his original work in economics, exist in the economic literature concerning this author and the diffusion of his work in economics. The present work provides a biography of Ludwig Hamburger and corrects the errors we find in the literature. It also sheds new light on the origins of his attempt to analyse business cycles with a nonlinear endogenous model.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"154 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115758960","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10370196.2021.1883367
J. King
1910s, with the main focus being on his theory of population. His Essay was mentioned in the writings of some Japanese scholars in the 1880s. The earliest commentary in Japan on the Principles is thought to have been published in 1885, and a detailed study of the Principles was published in 1912 (412). Malthus’s ideas on population appeared in Japanese textbooks and novels in the late years of the nineteenth century. His ideas on population were used in support of internal and overseas migration designed to relieve population pressure in Japan due to its limited supply of land. There were ideological controversies between scholars who favoured Marxist policies and those who sought class harmony through social policy (440). Controversies persist today, as can be seen in the publications of Japanese scholars and in Japanese journals and conferences of societies specializing in the study of Malthus, Ricardo, and other areas of the history of economic thought. A necessarily brief review cannot possibly do justice to the wealth of information contained in a book that is a tribute to the immense research effort of its contributors. It will undoubtedly become a valuable source of information in the history of economic thought, and will surely stimulate discussion and controversy in the interpretation and assessment of Malthus’s economics.
{"title":"F.A. Hayek: Economics, Political Economy and Social Philosophy","authors":"J. King","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2021.1883367","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2021.1883367","url":null,"abstract":"1910s, with the main focus being on his theory of population. His Essay was mentioned in the writings of some Japanese scholars in the 1880s. The earliest commentary in Japan on the Principles is thought to have been published in 1885, and a detailed study of the Principles was published in 1912 (412). Malthus’s ideas on population appeared in Japanese textbooks and novels in the late years of the nineteenth century. His ideas on population were used in support of internal and overseas migration designed to relieve population pressure in Japan due to its limited supply of land. There were ideological controversies between scholars who favoured Marxist policies and those who sought class harmony through social policy (440). Controversies persist today, as can be seen in the publications of Japanese scholars and in Japanese journals and conferences of societies specializing in the study of Malthus, Ricardo, and other areas of the history of economic thought. A necessarily brief review cannot possibly do justice to the wealth of information contained in a book that is a tribute to the immense research effort of its contributors. It will undoubtedly become a valuable source of information in the history of economic thought, and will surely stimulate discussion and controversy in the interpretation and assessment of Malthus’s economics.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127312021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：