Alfred Marshall's critical analysis of scientific management∗

Abstract

In Industry and Trade, ‘A study of industrial technique and business organization; and of their influences on the conditions of various classes and nations’ (1919), Alfred Marshall develops a detailed analysis of scientific management, emphasizing not only its unquestionable advantages but also its dangerous limits. Although in the literature Marshall's evaluation of scientific management has been considered rather positive, the author has found it sceptical and definitively critical in many passages of his book. This paper deals with Marshall's analysis in order to underline the reasons why he criticizes Taylor's system, which, at that time, sounded like the greatest expression of modernity.     

Competition and co-operation: toward understanding industrial districts 1

The central feature of the ‘industrial district’ is the balance between competition and co-operation among firms. This paper addresses the role of competition and co-operation in the organization of economic activity. We first compare Alfred Marshall's notion of industrial district and that of contemporary writers. We then discuss the limits of competition in the presence of such problems as asset specificity, measurement problems and externalities. We argue that under such circumstances industrial success depends on the effectiveness of collective institution-mediated co-operation. We further discuss various factors that might foster for hinder development of such institutions.     

Whatever happened to Marshall's industrial economics?

Industry and Trade and the works on industrial economics by the Cambridge school – Chapman, Macgregor, Robertson, Lavington, A. Robinson and Florence – are usually neglected as if they were devoid of theoretical relevance. By contrast, the author argues that Marshall's evolutionary model, centred on the continuous interplay between innovation and standardization, inspired original research on localization, business size, coordination costs and industrial combinations. The paper also suggests that Marshallian ideas on the growth of firms and the structure of industrial organization are coming back in contemporary evolutionary theories of the firm.     

The wages‐and‐profits fund: Classical remnants in Marshall's early theory of distribution

Abstract

This paper traces the development of Marshall's theory of wages from the late 1860s to the publication of the first edition of the Principles of Economics (1890). Section one attempts to unravel Marshall's recollections of early intellectual influences, many of which were often distorted or wrong. Specifically, J. S. Mill's, Fleeming Jenkin's and J. H. von Thünen's influence on Marshall's early theory of distribution is explored in this context. In section two, analyses of Marshall's theory of wages in Economics of Industry (1879) and in other published writings is presented. This section draws attention to the similarity between Marshall's treatment of wages and the classical wage fund doctrine. In the final section, we re‐examine Marshall's defence of his theory of value and distribution in the Economics of Industry in the face of criticism of it by American economists S. M. MacVane and J. L. Laughlin in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.     

Alfred Marshall's use of Adam Smith: Coming to grips with an aspect of Alfred Marshall's citation practice

Abstract

This paper outlines Marshall's use of Smith's writings in his own published work as an aspect of Marshall's citation practice and to demonstrate Marshall's great admiration for Smith as economist. Section 2 reviews the Smith citations in Marshall's Principles of Economics', section 3 those in Marshall's other published work. The conclusion notes that this citation practice matches Marshall's great admiration Smith the economist, because of Smith's great ability to blend fact and theory, for drawing measured conclusions and, above all, for constructing useful arguments in a field of imprecise knowledge.     

FROM ONE TO MANY ISLANDS: THE EMERGENCE OF SEARCH AND MATCHING MODELS

The notion of frictional unemployment failed to grow into a full‐fledged theory in the writings of Beveridge, Pigou and Hicks, as these economists were unwilling and/or unable to go beyond the then‐prevailing Marshallian approach. Here, first we make explicit the trade organization assumptions underpinning Marshall's equilibrium theory. Next we examine Beveridge's, Pigou's and Hicks' early works on wages and unemployment. Finally, we look at the seminal papers that paved the way for search literature: McCall, Lucas and Prescott, Mortensen and Pissarides. We show that they succeed in providing an unemployment result, because they indeed depart from the Marshallian trade organization.     

Foreword to the Symposium

This paper investigates a number of aspects of Piero Sraffa's early philosophical thinking by placing him within the historical materialist tradition of reasoning about the relation of ideas to the historical process. It first distinguishes Alfred Marshall's views about the historical development of ideas by addressing Marshall's responses to the criticisms of William Cunningham of the English Historical School. Marshall's concept of economics as a universal engine of discovery was rejected by Sraffa in his early writings. Sraffa's critique of Marshall is then argued to lead to two early philosophical commitments on Sraffa's part: that deductivist modes of explanation are inappropriate in economics and that economics aims to explain the underlying structures of causal interaction that had been the concern of the classical political economists. The paper closes with brief remarks on how Sraffa's later philosophical thinking might be approached.     

Method and analysis in Piero Sraffa's 1925 critique of Marshallian economics

This paper provides an analysis of the logical structure and analytical content of Piero Sraffa's 1925 Italian paper, ‘Sulle relazioni fra costo e quantità prodotta’. It shows that Sraffa's criticism of the supply side of Marshall's theory of value in a competitive partial equilibrium model involves analytical and methodological issues. Endorsing an agressive methodology Sraffa logically reconstructs Marshall's model on variable returns to determine its empirical domain. He demonstrates that the latter encompasses only the empirically irrelevant cases of specific factor industries and specific external economies industries and that it cannot be generalized to non-specific factor industries and to non-specific external economies industries.     

Britain’s Industrial Evolution: The Structuring Role of Economic Theory

We trace the coevolution of industrial organization and the ideas and policies that have influenced Britain’s industrial development from Alfred Marshall’s pioneering work on the English industrial districts to the present. Then, we examine four contemporary districts — in footwear, motorsport, sparkling wine, and cyber security — that are internationally competitive, despite decades of ill-informed policy choices, if not neglect. We also investigate the case of British elite sport as a high-performance industrial cluster with potentially transferrable institutional arrangements, particularly with regard to the nature and role of the strategic lead body and the state, as well as relationships within the system. We conclude that Marshall’s methodological and theoretical approach to understanding industrial organization — and his belief that industrial districts would coexist with other forms of industrial organization (rather than be superseded by them) — helps to explain the dynamism of contemporary British industrial districts, with important implications for Britain’s industrial revitalization.     

The contribution of Gerald Shove to the development of Cambridge Economics

Frank Gerald Shove was a close friend of Keynes and the other protagonists of the economic debates in Cambridge during the 1920s and 1930s. Shove's influence on those debates is not well documented because he published little and had all his notes destroyed after his death. This paper looks at Shove's most significant contributions to the debates of the 1930s. Attention is concentrated on the debates over increasing returns and imperfect competition. Shove emphasized the complexity of economic phenomena and the need to develop tools to deal with it. He found his analytical and methodological inspiration in Marshall's work. This position led him to clash with younger economists, in particular Joan Robinson, whose work on imperfect competition and whose efforts to achieve rigorous and ‘precise’ results failed, in his view, to capture the working of actual markets. The final section of the paper discusses the similarity of Shove's methodological outlook to that of Keynes. Both were well aware of the need to go beyond Marshall, but they wanted to retain the richness, complexity and realism of Marshall's approach.     

Alfred Marshall's Mecca: Reconciling the Theories of Value and Development*

The purpose of this paper is to explore the evolutionary nature and content of Marshall's theory of value and the relation it bears to his theory of growth and development. In Marshall's work the two theories are inextricably linked, and the subsequent attempt to separate them has not only marginalised Marshall's rich analysis but also made it impossible to appreciate the role he gave to innovation, and its corollary the growth of knowledge and organisation, in the workings of a market economy. At its core is the relation between the growth of firms and the growth of markets, but this is not steady‐state growth theory; rather, it is the different, mutually determined and ever changing growth rates of different groups of firms that is at the centre of attention. Quite how variation is linked to progress is the central topic of this essay, and the elucidation of its central role necessarily means that we must resurrect the representative firm. We conclude that Marshall was correct in stating that ‘the tendency to variation is a chief source of progress’ (Principles, V, 4, p. 355). We develop a set of evolutionary tools to show how and why this is so. But evolution is more than variation; it requires the organisation of firms and the market process to generate that correlation between differential knowledge and economic advance. Most importantly of all, the concept of a representative firm is re‐established as an indispensable element in a Marshallian evolutionary analysis.     

Content and method: an epistemic perspective on some historical episodes

The double contrast between allocation and process and between formal proof and empirically based reasoning is selectively applied to the history of economics. Hume's rejection of provable knowledge led to Smith's psychological explanation of science and thence to his theory of growth through the division of labour. Marshall's cautious theorizing and cognitively based evolutionary perspective stimulated contrasting responses from Sraffa and Young. Robinson matched method to content but Chamberlin did not, and Andrews's attempt to develop a process-based price theory met more resistance than Penrose's reinvention of growth theory. We currently observe conflicting methods of handling evolution and business strategy.     

Marshall on equilibrium and time: a reconstruction

This paper's aim is to offer a reconstruction of the Marshallian conception of equilibrium and time. Its main features are as follows. First, I argue that the hallmark of this conception is to posit an interrelationship between two equilibrium concepts — market-day and normal equilibrium. I claim that they are part and parcel and cannot be analysed separately. Second, my reconstruction gives a central role to the market period. Third, I argue that the so-called short and long-period equilibrium concepts refer to the same unique concept of normal equilibrium. Fourth, I argue that Marshall’s value theory admits the effective existence of disequilibrium states. A Marshallian disequilibrium refers to cases where market-day and normal values fail to coincide, this state of affairs going along, however, with market clearing. I also propose an alternative interpretation of Marshall's corn model wherein perfect information is considered the linchpin of achieving equilibrium. Finally, I argue that my reconstruction avoids a series of interpretative pitfalls.     

Alfred Marshall and François Perroux: the neglected liaison*

The richness François Perroux's economic theories have allowed the literature to highlight several connections between him and other authors. Among the names mentioned in the literature, one economist is conspicuous by his absence: Alfred Marshall. However, the relations between Marshall and Perroux are manifold and are far from accidental: not only because Perroux was a careful reader of Marshall but also and moreover because they both have an important common ground, which affected their perspectives. The main aim of this paper is to inquire into the aspects that characterise Marshall's and Perroux's approaches, stressing their affinities and underlining their common roots.     

Krishna Bharadwaj's “Return to Classical Theory”: an attempt towards an archaeological reconstruction

Abstract

In the wake of Sraffa's ‘return to classical theory’, Krishna Bharadwaj undertook a critical reassessment of Marshall's claim to continuity with classical theory in general and Ricardo's ‘intensive margin’ in particular. Her analysis is based on an analytical separation between two distinct ways of economic reasoning: the ‘surplus based’ and the ‘demand and supply based’ theories. Calling it an ‘archaeological reconstruction’ of the history of economic theories, I will examine how such an interpretation of theoretical shifts clarifies both the presuppositions behind analysing at the ‘margin’, and hence its radical departure from the conceptual content of the classical theory.     

Knowledge,coordination and the firm: Historical perspectives

Abstract

This paper illustrates the problems and processes of developing economic knowledge by a selective historical treatment of ideas about the firm. Coase thought it necessary to explain firms as organizations, but not as distinctive productive units; neither did he explain why markets exist. Chamberlin's attempt to introduce product differentiation and selling costs is compared with Allyn Young's process theory and Marshall's treatment of the firm, and inter-firm relations, as means of organizing the growth of knowledge. The firm is a decision-making system in a context of Knightian uncertainty, and Simon's concept of quasi-decomposability applies to human brains and human organizations.     

The future of the working classes: a comparison between J.S. Mill and A. Marshall

Abstract

Both J. S. Mill and A. Marshall had a lifelong interest in the living conditions of the working classes and theorized the possibility of a new age, characterized by a widespread mental and moral cultivation. This paper compares the precise arguments put forward by them in the period ranging from Mill's to Marshall's Principles, against the background of the evidence of social and human progress at their times. It is argued that, at different stages and with different specific arguments, their predictions relied on self-reinforcing mechanisms, in which a better life was the cause, no less than the effect, of progress. In order to make similarities and differences more transparent from a logical point of view, two simple mathematical formulations are proposed.     

A peculiar archaeology: Searching for Mr Giffen's behaviour

Abstract

It has been claimed that references to ‘Giffen behaviour’ constituted a single research project, driven by attempts to establish whether an initial ‘conjecture’ by Alfred Marshall had empirical validity. There is no stable basis for that claim because Marshall's discussion was contradictory and Robert Giffen rejected a key assumption made by Marshall. By the mid-1920s, discussion of an upward-sloping demand curve attached no particular significance to a Marshallian story. The formulation of the Irish famine Giffen exemplar by P.A. Samuelson illustrates how Giffen behaviour was stabilised as the single possible exception to the law of demand in the 1960s.     

Identification of firms’ beliefs in structural models of market competition

Firms make decisions under uncertainty and differ in their ability to collect and process information. As a result, in changing environments, firms have heterogeneous beliefs on the behaviour of other firms. This heterogeneity in beliefs can have important implications on market outcomes, efficiency and welfare. This paper studies the identification of firms’ beliefs using their observed actions—a revealed preference and beliefs approach. I consider a general structural model of market competition where firms have incomplete information and their beliefs and profits are nonparametric functions of decisions and state variables. Beliefs may be out of equilibrium. The framework applies both to continuous and discrete choice games and includes as particular cases models of competition in prices or quantities, auction models, entry games and dynamic games of investment decisions. I focus on identification results that exploit an exclusion restriction that naturally appears in models of competition: an observable variable that affects a firm's cost (or revenue) but does not have a direct effect on other firms’ profits. I present identification results under three scenarios—common in empirical industrial organization—on the data available to the researcher.     

Missing links in Marshall's early thoughts on education

Over the period 1867?-?73 Marshall integrated his thoughts on education reform with his work on psychology, and then economics. Around 1872, when the static method proved problematic with regard to long-term wage differentials, Marshall took his developing position concerning education and incorporated it into his emerging vision of political economy, the result being the germ of much of Book IV of the Principles. In addition, looking at Marshall's early study of psychology in conjunction with his writings on education provides further reason to doubt that Marshall ever embraced a wholly materialist philosophy.