Pub Date : 2023-02-15DOI: 10.1017/S1053837222000554
P. Fontaine
{"title":"Elizabeth Popp Berman, Thinking like an Economist: How Efficiency Replaced Equality in U.S. Public Policy (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2022), pp. x, 329, $35 (hardcover). ISBN: 9780691167381. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv1vtz8n7.","authors":"P. Fontaine","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000554","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"520 - 523"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42844290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-14DOI: 10.1017/S1053837222000402
M. Boumans
{"title":"Peter Galbács, The Friedman-Lucas Transition in Macroeconomics: A Structuralist Approach (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, 2020), pp. xix + 377, $75 (paperback). ISBN: 9780128165652.","authors":"M. Boumans","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000402","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"535 - 537"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42075322","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-14DOI: 10.1017/s1053837222000621
Emily Erikson
{"title":"Keith Tribe, Constructing Economic Science: The Invention of a Discipline 1850–1950, Oxford Studies in the History of Economics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022), pp. 440, $99 (hardcover). ISBN: 9780190491741.","authors":"Emily Erikson","doi":"10.1017/s1053837222000621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1053837222000621","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"363 - 365"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43443177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-14DOI: 10.1017/S1053837222000645
James R. Otteson
Most Adam Smith scholars hold that Smith endorsed public provision of education to offset deleterious consequences arising from the division of labor. Smith’s putative endorsement of publicly funded education is taken by some scholars as evidence that he tends more toward progressive than classical liberalism, or that this is a departure from, perhaps an inconsistency with, Smith’s otherwise strong presumption against government intervention in markets. This paper argues that these interpretations are flawed because Smith ultimately does not advocate public provision of education. He raises the idea and explores its potential benefits, but he ultimately does not endorse it. Smith also provides reason to be skeptical of public provision of education, which suggests that his final position may have inclined against it.
{"title":"ADAM SMITH ON PUBLIC PROVISION OF EDUCATION","authors":"James R. Otteson","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000645","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000645","url":null,"abstract":"Most Adam Smith scholars hold that Smith endorsed public provision of education to offset deleterious consequences arising from the division of labor. Smith’s putative endorsement of publicly funded education is taken by some scholars as evidence that he tends more toward progressive than classical liberalism, or that this is a departure from, perhaps an inconsistency with, Smith’s otherwise strong presumption against government intervention in markets. This paper argues that these interpretations are flawed because Smith ultimately does not advocate public provision of education. He raises the idea and explores its potential benefits, but he ultimately does not endorse it. Smith also provides reason to be skeptical of public provision of education, which suggests that his final position may have inclined against it.","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"229 - 248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45269091","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-14DOI: 10.1017/s105383722200061x
C. Wennerlind
{"title":"Jacob Soll, Free Market: The History of an Idea (New York: Basic Books, 2022), pp. 336, $32 (hardcover); $18.99 (ebook). ISBN: 9780465049707 (hardcover).","authors":"C. Wennerlind","doi":"10.1017/s105383722200061x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s105383722200061x","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"365 - 366"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48526658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-06DOI: 10.1017/S1053837222000220
Ola Innset
Marshallianism. The othermain idea of the author is related to the consequences of themigration of the most important economists of the time fromEurope to the United States. That migration, which occurred in the 1930s, due to thewell-known political circumstances, had de facto determined a process of theoretical “colonialism,” which had a double effect: on one side, it unified the American economic thought, and, on the other side, it shaped the present mainstream economics. I guess that this process likely will be described in the following Volume III. The combination of these two ideas is a key point for the community of historians of economics. By following Marchionatti’s suggestion, we might consider whether the origin of the present mainstream economics is truly a process of deconstruction and rebuilding of Marshallianism under the American eyes, or whether it has a more complicated origin that cannot ignore the complexity of the economic theory that spread between the two sides of the pond up to 1945 and that should be described in a more sophisticated way. Furthermore, as historians of economic ideas, shall we subscribe to the author’s “Eurocentric” vision? Or shall we make some distinctions that include the peculiarity of American economic thought? These questions remain open, and Volume III will likely help readers to add further relevant elements in order to discuss them and maybe to find some plausible answers as well as to address new ones to the community of historians of economics. Hence, we praise Marchionatti’s efforts and insights and acknowledge him for giving us this opportunity for an open discussion on these fundamental aspects of the history of economics.
{"title":"John L. Campbell and John A. Hall, What Capitalism Needs: Forgotten Lessons of Great Economists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), pp. 299, $28.95 (hardcover). ISBN: 9781108487825.","authors":"Ola Innset","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000220","url":null,"abstract":"Marshallianism. The othermain idea of the author is related to the consequences of themigration of the most important economists of the time fromEurope to the United States. That migration, which occurred in the 1930s, due to thewell-known political circumstances, had de facto determined a process of theoretical “colonialism,” which had a double effect: on one side, it unified the American economic thought, and, on the other side, it shaped the present mainstream economics. I guess that this process likely will be described in the following Volume III. The combination of these two ideas is a key point for the community of historians of economics. By following Marchionatti’s suggestion, we might consider whether the origin of the present mainstream economics is truly a process of deconstruction and rebuilding of Marshallianism under the American eyes, or whether it has a more complicated origin that cannot ignore the complexity of the economic theory that spread between the two sides of the pond up to 1945 and that should be described in a more sophisticated way. Furthermore, as historians of economic ideas, shall we subscribe to the author’s “Eurocentric” vision? Or shall we make some distinctions that include the peculiarity of American economic thought? These questions remain open, and Volume III will likely help readers to add further relevant elements in order to discuss them and maybe to find some plausible answers as well as to address new ones to the community of historians of economics. Hence, we praise Marchionatti’s efforts and insights and acknowledge him for giving us this opportunity for an open discussion on these fundamental aspects of the history of economics.","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"174 - 177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48953864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-03DOI: 10.1017/S105383722200030X
M. Paganelli
James Ahiakpor claims I am incorrect in my reading of Adam Smith when I suggest that Smith may not endorse, or may even reject, a four stages of development model, given his absence of historical example of any country that developed following the four stages, but rather that his descriptions of different stages look more like a taxonomy to describe different types of societies. I very much appreciate the time and energy Ahiakpor put on my work and I have no qualm about his reading of my paper. Since I was asked to reply to his detailed comments, I will. But only in a general, methodological, way. The beauty ofAdamSmith’s works, inmy view, is their complexity and theirmultiple shades. I do not see Smith as a black and white writer but as someone who sees the gray areas. And his focus on the gray may be what allows centuries of debates andmultiple, if not contradicting, interpretations. The way I see Smith is that he is aware of the complexity of economic phenomena, which may very well have multiple and possibly unknown causes and explanations. The role of the “philosopher,” or social scientist, is to try to understand and elaborate them. But trying to understand them does not necessarily imply finding the one and only truth behind them, which, for Smith, may not be available to us, or not even be there. As Smith tells us in his History of Astronomy, we want to connect the dots, we want to come up with an explanation for things that happen around us. But there are different ways of connecting the same dots. And there may even be different dots to connect. And so, differently from THE Theory of Moral Sentiments, we do not have THE Theory of the Wealth of Nations, or THE Theory of the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. We have AN Inquiry into it. So, maybe presumptuously, I would hope I follow Smith’s spirit of inquiring and simply offer a different way of connecting the dots from Ronald Meek or Ahiakpor, not the one and only correct way of understanding Smith. Scholars have given different emphases to different sentences or words in Smith. Ahiakpor emphasizes different words and different sentences fromwhat I do. In a sense I completely agree with him that, in Smith, saving and the accumulation of capital are at the base of growth, or that different government policies will have a major effect in the development of a country. And I can also see how he “infers” (his word) a development in stages from it. But in my reading of Smith, I preferred to emphasize a different
James Ahiakpor声称，我在阅读亚当·斯密时认为，鉴于史密斯没有任何国家在这四个阶段之后发展起来的历史例子，他可能不支持甚至可能拒绝四个阶段的发展模式，但他对不同阶段的描述更像是描述不同类型社会的分类学，这是不正确的。我非常感谢Ahiakpor为我的工作投入的时间和精力，我对他阅读我的论文毫不犹豫。既然要求我答复他的详细意见，我会的。但只是以一种普遍的、方法论的方式。在我看来，史密斯作品的美妙之处在于它们的复杂性和多重色彩。我不认为史密斯是一个黑人和白人作家，而是一个看到灰色地带的人。他对灰色的关注可能是几个世纪以来的争论和多种（如果不是矛盾的话）解释的原因。我对史密斯的看法是，他意识到经济现象的复杂性，这些现象很可能有多种可能未知的原因和解释。“哲学家”或社会科学家的作用是试图理解和阐述它们。但试图理解它们并不一定意味着找到它们背后唯一的真相，对史密斯来说，这些真相可能对我们来说是不可用的，甚至不存在。正如史密斯在他的《天文学史》中告诉我们的那样，我们想把这些点联系起来，我们想对我们周围发生的事情做出解释。甚至可能存在不同的连接点。因此，与道德情操论不同，我们没有国富论，也没有国富的性质和原因论。我们对此进行了调查。所以，也许是冒昧地，我希望我能遵循史密斯的调查精神，简单地提供一种不同于罗纳德·米克或Ahiakpor的连接点的方式，而不是理解史密斯的唯一正确方式。学者们对《史密斯》中不同的句子或词语给予了不同的重视。Ahiakpor强调了与我所做的不同的词语和句子。从某种意义上说，我完全同意他的观点，即在史密斯看来，储蓄和资本积累是增长的基础，或者不同的政府政策将对一个国家的发展产生重大影响。我还可以看到他是如何从中“推断”（他的话）一个阶段性的发展的
{"title":"LETTER TO THE EDITOR: WAS SMITH A STAGE THEORIST? A RESPONSE TO AHIAKPOR","authors":"M. Paganelli","doi":"10.1017/S105383722200030X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S105383722200030X","url":null,"abstract":"James Ahiakpor claims I am incorrect in my reading of Adam Smith when I suggest that Smith may not endorse, or may even reject, a four stages of development model, given his absence of historical example of any country that developed following the four stages, but rather that his descriptions of different stages look more like a taxonomy to describe different types of societies. I very much appreciate the time and energy Ahiakpor put on my work and I have no qualm about his reading of my paper. Since I was asked to reply to his detailed comments, I will. But only in a general, methodological, way. The beauty ofAdamSmith’s works, inmy view, is their complexity and theirmultiple shades. I do not see Smith as a black and white writer but as someone who sees the gray areas. And his focus on the gray may be what allows centuries of debates andmultiple, if not contradicting, interpretations. The way I see Smith is that he is aware of the complexity of economic phenomena, which may very well have multiple and possibly unknown causes and explanations. The role of the “philosopher,” or social scientist, is to try to understand and elaborate them. But trying to understand them does not necessarily imply finding the one and only truth behind them, which, for Smith, may not be available to us, or not even be there. As Smith tells us in his History of Astronomy, we want to connect the dots, we want to come up with an explanation for things that happen around us. But there are different ways of connecting the same dots. And there may even be different dots to connect. And so, differently from THE Theory of Moral Sentiments, we do not have THE Theory of the Wealth of Nations, or THE Theory of the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. We have AN Inquiry into it. So, maybe presumptuously, I would hope I follow Smith’s spirit of inquiring and simply offer a different way of connecting the dots from Ronald Meek or Ahiakpor, not the one and only correct way of understanding Smith. Scholars have given different emphases to different sentences or words in Smith. Ahiakpor emphasizes different words and different sentences fromwhat I do. In a sense I completely agree with him that, in Smith, saving and the accumulation of capital are at the base of growth, or that different government policies will have a major effect in the development of a country. And I can also see how he “infers” (his word) a development in stages from it. But in my reading of Smith, I preferred to emphasize a different","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"351 - 352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48983831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-03DOI: 10.1017/S1053837222000293
James C. W. Ahiakpor
Three principal problems with Maria Pia Paganelli’s (2022) treatment of Adam Smith’s “Four Stages” theory of (socio-)economic development are, first, her doubting whether Smith argues the “four stages” theory or a “stadial model” of economic development; second, her preference for only the equivalent of time-series data to evaluate Smith’s four stages theory; and third, her misrepresenting several of Smith’s arguments in theWealth of Nations (hereinafterWN). From these flaws in her analysis and ignoring the development economics literature that appreciates the relevance of Smith’s explanations, Paganelli invites us to inquire again into the causes of the wealth of nations since Smith has failed in that effort: “when none of the empirical data fits our stadial model of economic development, maybe it is time to inquire again into what causes nations to develop and grow richer” (2022, p. 98; italics original). She also appears not to have paid much attention to Smith’s explanation in the “Introduction and Plan of the Work” of his goals in the five books of the Wealth of Nations, namely: (a) to explain the “causes of [the] improvement, in the productive powers of labour, and the order, according to which its produce is naturally distributed among the different ranks and conditions of [people] in society” (WN, pp. 10 11); (b) to “explain in what has constituted the revenue of the great body of the people, or what has been the nature of these funds which, in different ages and nations, have supplied their annual consumption” (p. 11); and (c) to explain the proper role of government in the economic development process. Paganelli’s arguments are thus incorrect and misleading. My comment elaborates.
Maria Pia Paganelli（2022）对亚当·斯密的（社会）经济发展“四个阶段”理论的处理存在三个主要问题：首先，她怀疑史密斯是主张经济发展的“四个时期”理论还是“阶段模型”；第二，她倾向于只使用时间序列数据来评估史密斯的四阶段理论；第三，她歪曲了史密斯在《国富论》中的一些论点。从她的分析中的这些缺陷，以及忽视发展经济学文献对史密斯解释的相关性的赞赏，帕加内利邀请我们再次探究国家财富的原因，因为史密斯在这方面的努力失败了：“当没有一个实证数据符合我们的经济发展标准模型时，也许是时候再次探究是什么导致国家发展和变得更富了”（2022，第98页；斜体字原件）。她似乎也没有太注意史密斯在“工作介绍和计划”中对他在《国富论》五本书中的目标的解释，即：（a）解释“劳动生产力和劳动产品在社会中不同阶层和条件之间自然分配的顺序的改善的原因”（WN，pp.1011）；（b） “解释是什么构成了广大人民的收入，或者这些资金的性质是什么，这些资金在不同的时代和国家提供了他们的年度消费”（第11页）；（c）解释政府在经济发展过程中的适当作用。因此，帕加内利的论点是不正确和误导性的。我的评论很详细。
{"title":"LETTER TO THE EDITOR: A COMMENT ON MARIA PIA PAGANELLI’S MISTAKEN TREATMENT OF ADAM SMITH’S “FOUR STAGES” THEORY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT","authors":"James C. W. Ahiakpor","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000293","url":null,"abstract":"Three principal problems with Maria Pia Paganelli’s (2022) treatment of Adam Smith’s “Four Stages” theory of (socio-)economic development are, first, her doubting whether Smith argues the “four stages” theory or a “stadial model” of economic development; second, her preference for only the equivalent of time-series data to evaluate Smith’s four stages theory; and third, her misrepresenting several of Smith’s arguments in theWealth of Nations (hereinafterWN). From these flaws in her analysis and ignoring the development economics literature that appreciates the relevance of Smith’s explanations, Paganelli invites us to inquire again into the causes of the wealth of nations since Smith has failed in that effort: “when none of the empirical data fits our stadial model of economic development, maybe it is time to inquire again into what causes nations to develop and grow richer” (2022, p. 98; italics original). She also appears not to have paid much attention to Smith’s explanation in the “Introduction and Plan of the Work” of his goals in the five books of the Wealth of Nations, namely: (a) to explain the “causes of [the] improvement, in the productive powers of labour, and the order, according to which its produce is naturally distributed among the different ranks and conditions of [people] in society” (WN, pp. 10 11); (b) to “explain in what has constituted the revenue of the great body of the people, or what has been the nature of these funds which, in different ages and nations, have supplied their annual consumption” (p. 11); and (c) to explain the proper role of government in the economic development process. Paganelli’s arguments are thus incorrect and misleading. My comment elaborates.","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"343 - 350"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47010797","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-01DOI: 10.1017/s1053837222000232
Chung-Tang Cheng
{"title":"Jeff E. Biddle, Progression through Regression: The Life Story of the Empirical Cobb-Douglas Production Function (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), pp. xii + 334, $110 (hardcover). ISBN: 9781108492263.","authors":"Chung-Tang Cheng","doi":"10.1017/s1053837222000232","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1053837222000232","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"162 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44373697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-02-01DOI: 10.1017/S1053837222000463
T. Aspromourgos
“Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters. Thus the law which obliges the masters in several different trades to pay their workmen in money and not in goods, is quite just and equitable” (Smith 1976 [1776]), I.x.c.61, pp. 157–158).
{"title":"SMITH AT 300: ON REGULATION OF THE LABOUR CONTRACT","authors":"T. Aspromourgos","doi":"10.1017/S1053837222000463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837222000463","url":null,"abstract":"“Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters. Thus the law which obliges the masters in several different trades to pay their workmen in money and not in goods, is quite just and equitable” (Smith 1976 [1776]), I.x.c.61, pp. 157–158).","PeriodicalId":45456,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"45 1","pages":"206 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45151332","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","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：