Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10085601
E. Hengel, Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams
This article describes how women have contributed to the research published in influential general interest journals between 1940 and 2019. The share of women published in these journals follows a U-shaped curve that troughs in the late 1970s—a decline possibly related to an increase in the number of papers being published as well as a rise in coauthoring. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, the share of women began increasing again, largely thanks to a rise in mixed-gendered papers. Coauthorship between women, on the other hand, was almost nonexistent until around 2010. A decade-by-decade comparison of men's and women's coauthorship networks suggests female-female networks in the most recent decade in our data (2010–19) roughly resemble male networks from earlier decades (1940–69) and highlight the key role prominent individuals play in network formation. We hypothesize that the recent growth in papers by female teams may signal that research by women collaborating with other women is receiving greater recognition in the field.
{"title":"A Historical Portrait of Female Economists' Coauthorship Networks","authors":"E. Hengel, Sarah Louisa Phythian-Adams","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10085601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10085601","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article describes how women have contributed to the research published in influential general interest journals between 1940 and 2019. The share of women published in these journals follows a U-shaped curve that troughs in the late 1970s—a decline possibly related to an increase in the number of papers being published as well as a rise in coauthoring. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, the share of women began increasing again, largely thanks to a rise in mixed-gendered papers. Coauthorship between women, on the other hand, was almost nonexistent until around 2010. A decade-by-decade comparison of men's and women's coauthorship networks suggests female-female networks in the most recent decade in our data (2010–19) roughly resemble male networks from earlier decades (1940–69) and highlight the key role prominent individuals play in network formation. We hypothesize that the recent growth in papers by female teams may signal that research by women collaborating with other women is receiving greater recognition in the field.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46003285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10085629
Marianne Johnson
This article considers the institutional and intellectual trajectory of Elinor Ostrom as an interdisciplinary scholar in the postwar period and how her contributions have been reframed after she became the first woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. Two distinct but interrelated historiographical problems influence our perceptions of Ostrom. The first relates to the difficulties women face in dual-career partnerships that often affect their ability to establish independent academic careers and gain fair recognition for contributions to shared research programs. How Ostrom negotiated these challenges highlights the many and often hidden constraints professional women face. The second problem is how to gauge or weight the work of the Ostrom who was a multidisciplinary scholar of the commons with that of the Ostrom who was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize. Exploring her trajectory in public choice over a half century makes apparent the remarkable force a Nobel Prize exerts on post hoc appraisals of a career.
{"title":"Two “Two Ostrom” Problems","authors":"Marianne Johnson","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10085629","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10085629","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article considers the institutional and intellectual trajectory of Elinor Ostrom as an interdisciplinary scholar in the postwar period and how her contributions have been reframed after she became the first woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. Two distinct but interrelated historiographical problems influence our perceptions of Ostrom. The first relates to the difficulties women face in dual-career partnerships that often affect their ability to establish independent academic careers and gain fair recognition for contributions to shared research programs. How Ostrom negotiated these challenges highlights the many and often hidden constraints professional women face. The second problem is how to gauge or weight the work of the Ostrom who was a multidisciplinary scholar of the commons with that of the Ostrom who was the first woman to win a Nobel Prize. Exploring her trajectory in public choice over a half century makes apparent the remarkable force a Nobel Prize exerts on post hoc appraisals of a career.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46197508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10085615
Jennifer M. Burns
This article uses archival sources to reconstruct an alternate history of Milton Friedman's A Theory of the Consumption Function, spotlighting the contributions of his collaborators Margaret Reid, Dorothy Brady, and Rose Friedman. Although Milton Friedman offered public credit to his wife and their two close friends, none received formal recognition or reward for their contribution to the permanent income hypothesis. The article documents this hypothesis as an example in professional economics of the well-known “Matilda effect,” in which women's intellectual contributions are systemically devalued, while arguing it is important to distinguish between formal and informal credit. Further, the article connects the lower status of women's consumption economics to broader shifts in the economics discipline across the twentieth century.
{"title":"Hidden Figures: A New History of the Permanent Income Hypothesis","authors":"Jennifer M. Burns","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10085615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10085615","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article uses archival sources to reconstruct an alternate history of Milton Friedman's A Theory of the Consumption Function, spotlighting the contributions of his collaborators Margaret Reid, Dorothy Brady, and Rose Friedman. Although Milton Friedman offered public credit to his wife and their two close friends, none received formal recognition or reward for their contribution to the permanent income hypothesis. The article documents this hypothesis as an example in professional economics of the well-known “Matilda effect,” in which women's intellectual contributions are systemically devalued, while arguing it is important to distinguish between formal and informal credit. Further, the article connects the lower status of women's consumption economics to broader shifts in the economics discipline across the twentieth century.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44618961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10085668
Christina Laskaridis
The name of Margaret Marie Garritsen de Vries may not be the first that pops into people's minds when thinking about the International Monetary Fund. It is through her work, as the long-standing official Fund historian, that those interested in the Fund's history will travel through. An operational economist during the first part of her career, her turn to history was the avenue through which she could continue it. Leaving a lasting impression on her colleagues, her institution, and the economics profession overall, she reaped recognition of her role in furthering the status of women in the profession, receiving prestigious awards, and through memorial funds set up in her name. The primary aim of this article is to piece together a brief biography. Studying the life of a woman economist turned historian in an international organization brings to light her contribution as an economist working in a predominantly man's field—international monetary and financial issues. This article explores her work as a historian—the main area of work for which she gained recognition—and draws out some of the particularities of women's work in an international organization during this period.
谈到国际货币基金组织(imf)，人们可能不会首先想到玛格丽特•玛丽•加里特森•德弗里斯(Margaret Marie Garritsen de Vries)这个名字。作为长期担任基金组织官方历史学家的她，那些对基金组织历史感兴趣的人将通过她的工作得以了解。在她职业生涯的前半段，她是一名运营经济学家，她转向历史是她继续这一职业的途径。她给她的同事、她所在的机构和整个经济学专业留下了深刻的印象，她在提高女性在经济学领域的地位方面所发挥的作用得到了认可，获得了著名的奖项，并通过以她的名字设立了纪念基金。这篇文章的主要目的是拼凑出一个简短的传记。研究一位在国际组织中担任历史学家的女性经济学家的一生，可以揭示出她作为一名在男性主导领域——国际货币和金融问题上工作的经济学家所做出的贡献。本文探讨了她作为一名历史学家的工作——这是她获得认可的主要工作领域——并引出了这一时期国际组织中妇女工作的一些特殊性。
{"title":"“Writing History as a Way of Life”: The Life and Work of Margaret Marie Garritsen de Vries","authors":"Christina Laskaridis","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10085668","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10085668","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The name of Margaret Marie Garritsen de Vries may not be the first that pops into people's minds when thinking about the International Monetary Fund. It is through her work, as the long-standing official Fund historian, that those interested in the Fund's history will travel through. An operational economist during the first part of her career, her turn to history was the avenue through which she could continue it. Leaving a lasting impression on her colleagues, her institution, and the economics profession overall, she reaped recognition of her role in furthering the status of women in the profession, receiving prestigious awards, and through memorial funds set up in her name. The primary aim of this article is to piece together a brief biography. Studying the life of a woman economist turned historian in an international organization brings to light her contribution as an economist working in a predominantly man's field—international monetary and financial issues. This article explores her work as a historian—the main area of work for which she gained recognition—and draws out some of the particularities of women's work in an international organization during this period.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41362073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-08-03DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10085696
Sarah F. Small
Barbara Bergmann was well known for many contributions to economics, but she was perhaps most famous for her 1971 occupational crowding hypothesis. The hypothesis was published during a surge of literature on the economics of discrimination, and it temporarily stood among the mainstream neoclassical theories before being relegated primarily to feminist and stratification economics. This article situates the crowding hypothesis among contemporary competing theories on the economics of discrimination and explains why it did not last in the mainstream camp. Despite Bergmann's neoclassical framing, the model's conclusions did not align with models of perfect competition and more closely aligned with heterodox perspectives on group power and conflict.
Barbara Bergmann因对经济学的许多贡献而闻名，但她最著名的可能是1971年的职业拥挤假说。这一假设是在歧视经济学文献激增期间发表的，在主要被归入女权主义和分层经济学之前，它暂时处于主流新古典主义理论之列。本文将拥挤假说置于当代歧视经济学竞争理论中，并解释了它为什么没有在主流阵营中持续存在。尽管Bergmann采用了新古典主义框架，但该模型的结论与完全竞争模型并不一致，而是与关于群体权力和冲突的异端观点更为一致。
{"title":"Tracing Barbara Bergmann's Occupational Crowding Hypothesis: A Recent History","authors":"Sarah F. Small","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10085696","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10085696","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Barbara Bergmann was well known for many contributions to economics, but she was perhaps most famous for her 1971 occupational crowding hypothesis. The hypothesis was published during a surge of literature on the economics of discrimination, and it temporarily stood among the mainstream neoclassical theories before being relegated primarily to feminist and stratification economics. This article situates the crowding hypothesis among contemporary competing theories on the economics of discrimination and explains why it did not last in the mainstream camp. Despite Bergmann's neoclassical framing, the model's conclusions did not align with models of perfect competition and more closely aligned with heterodox perspectives on group power and conflict.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45460109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10005732
M. Paganelli
What are the causes of prosperity? In addition to the division of labor, saving, capital accumulation, and good institutions, Adam Smith explains opulence through vanity and luck, two variables we tend to forget today. For Smith, wealth comes from our propensity to better our condition, combined with freedom and the security of the law. The propensity to better our condition is grounded in our vanity and can take the form of both parsimony and prodigality. The laws that guarantee freedom and security seem to be more of an accident of history than deliberate attempts to create prosperity. For Smith, vanity and accidents play a relevant role in economic growth.
{"title":"Vanity and Luck in Adam Smith's Economic Growth","authors":"M. Paganelli","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10005732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10005732","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 What are the causes of prosperity? In addition to the division of labor, saving, capital accumulation, and good institutions, Adam Smith explains opulence through vanity and luck, two variables we tend to forget today. For Smith, wealth comes from our propensity to better our condition, combined with freedom and the security of the law. The propensity to better our condition is grounded in our vanity and can take the form of both parsimony and prodigality. The laws that guarantee freedom and security seem to be more of an accident of history than deliberate attempts to create prosperity. For Smith, vanity and accidents play a relevant role in economic growth.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44450632","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10005746
G. Becchio
During the interwar period, Austrian school economists played a fundamental role in establishing marginalism as a central principle of economics. In those years, the role of Mises in Vienna was especially pivotal in building up economics as a science based on the notion of subjective utility within a free institutional framework. As is well known, Mises was surrounded by several colleagues and students who were members of his intellectual circle (Mises's Kreis). This paper sheds some light on the theoretical contribution of Martha Stephanie (Steffy) Braun (Browne), a neglected Austrian economist in Mises's circle. Embedded in the Viennese cultural milieu of the time and trained as an Austrian school economist, Braun originally helped develop, and sometimes anticipated, some pivotal aspects of the economic theory of the Austrian school. Her focus was mainly on monetary issues, the nature of economic policy, and economic education, especially for women.
{"title":"Martha S. Braun: A Neglected Austrian School Economist and Her Theoretical Contribution to Economics","authors":"G. Becchio","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10005746","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10005746","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 During the interwar period, Austrian school economists played a fundamental role in establishing marginalism as a central principle of economics. In those years, the role of Mises in Vienna was especially pivotal in building up economics as a science based on the notion of subjective utility within a free institutional framework. As is well known, Mises was surrounded by several colleagues and students who were members of his intellectual circle (Mises's Kreis). This paper sheds some light on the theoretical contribution of Martha Stephanie (Steffy) Braun (Browne), a neglected Austrian economist in Mises's circle. Embedded in the Viennese cultural milieu of the time and trained as an Austrian school economist, Braun originally helped develop, and sometimes anticipated, some pivotal aspects of the economic theory of the Austrian school. Her focus was mainly on monetary issues, the nature of economic policy, and economic education, especially for women.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46120394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10005886
T. Stapleford
{"title":"Making It Count: Statistics and Statecraft in the Early People's Republic of China","authors":"T. Stapleford","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10005886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10005886","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49654237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10005718
Juan Carvajalino
In this article, based on archival material, I show where and how von Neumann's mathematical economics evolved from the realization around 1932 that there existed a formal analogy between economics and games, to the conviction in 1940 that the analogy between homo economicus and homo ludens was more than a formal one. I also show that von Neumann's application of games to economics echoed in nontrivial ways scholarly discussions of a seminar organized in Fuld Hall at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton by von Neumann's historian colleague Edward Mead Earle. In the Earle seminar, an international community of historians and political and social scientists concerned with stability, strategy, and security issues investigated war as a social phenomenon from the perspectives of international relations and military history. In some of their discussions, homo ludens might have appeared as a category that should be taken more seriously in social theory. I argue that the Earle seminar discussions likely helped convince von Neumann in 1940 that the analogy between economics and games that he had found in 1932 was meaningful in a scholarly way to history, political science, and social science. By putting the von Neumann–Earle seminar connection in the backdrop of Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, I briefly bridge some interwar, World War II, and Cold War developments related to von Neumann's influence in economics and social science.
{"title":"Where Did John von Neumann's Mathematical Economics Come From?","authors":"Juan Carvajalino","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10005718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10005718","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this article, based on archival material, I show where and how von Neumann's mathematical economics evolved from the realization around 1932 that there existed a formal analogy between economics and games, to the conviction in 1940 that the analogy between homo economicus and homo ludens was more than a formal one. I also show that von Neumann's application of games to economics echoed in nontrivial ways scholarly discussions of a seminar organized in Fuld Hall at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton by von Neumann's historian colleague Edward Mead Earle. In the Earle seminar, an international community of historians and political and social scientists concerned with stability, strategy, and security issues investigated war as a social phenomenon from the perspectives of international relations and military history. In some of their discussions, homo ludens might have appeared as a category that should be taken more seriously in social theory. I argue that the Earle seminar discussions likely helped convince von Neumann in 1940 that the analogy between economics and games that he had found in 1932 was meaningful in a scholarly way to history, political science, and social science. By putting the von Neumann–Earle seminar connection in the backdrop of Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, I briefly bridge some interwar, World War II, and Cold War developments related to von Neumann's influence in economics and social science.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46557898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.1215/00182702-10005788
Jocelyn Hickey
Within the discipline of economics, as within all academic disciplines, scholars produce texts in which they examine, discuss, and sometimes invoke their intellectual predecessors. As historians of economic thought, we are faced with the task of evaluating the readings put forward by these scholars. In this article, I argue that to adequately evaluate such readings one must understand the inalienable role that a scholar's epistemological framework plays in the conditioning of their reading of historical texts and concepts. To do so, I examine two divergent readings of Adam Smith: Jacob Viner's reading of Smith's invisible hand as God and Paul Samuelson's reading of the same three words as an allocative mechanism that translates an individual's “selfish” actions into the public good or “the best good of all” within a state of perfect competition. These distinct readings from two North American economists with remarkably similar historical, geographical, and academic contexts provide the ideal case for exploring the manner in which readers' differing epistemological commitments shape their different readings of historical concepts and texts. I embed my exploration of these readings and the manner in which they are epistemologically conditioned within the wider discussion around an interpretation put forward by Quentin Skinner. In doing so, I offer an account of the variance in readings of ‘the invisible hand’ and thus contribute toward the contemporary revisionist Smithian literature that explores, criticizes, and revises dominant readings of Smith.
{"title":"Reading the Invisible Hand: An Epistemological Consideration","authors":"Jocelyn Hickey","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10005788","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10005788","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Within the discipline of economics, as within all academic disciplines, scholars produce texts in which they examine, discuss, and sometimes invoke their intellectual predecessors. As historians of economic thought, we are faced with the task of evaluating the readings put forward by these scholars. In this article, I argue that to adequately evaluate such readings one must understand the inalienable role that a scholar's epistemological framework plays in the conditioning of their reading of historical texts and concepts. To do so, I examine two divergent readings of Adam Smith: Jacob Viner's reading of Smith's invisible hand as God and Paul Samuelson's reading of the same three words as an allocative mechanism that translates an individual's “selfish” actions into the public good or “the best good of all” within a state of perfect competition. These distinct readings from two North American economists with remarkably similar historical, geographical, and academic contexts provide the ideal case for exploring the manner in which readers' differing epistemological commitments shape their different readings of historical concepts and texts. I embed my exploration of these readings and the manner in which they are epistemologically conditioned within the wider discussion around an interpretation put forward by Quentin Skinner. In doing so, I offer an account of the variance in readings of ‘the invisible hand’ and thus contribute toward the contemporary revisionist Smithian literature that explores, criticizes, and revises dominant readings of Smith.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46983776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","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：