Neither Lausanne nor Cambridge: Pantaleoni and the missing boundary between economics and sociology

Abstract

By the turn of the twentieth century, Lausanne and Cambridge were the centres of diffusion of two rival versions of marginalism. This paper focuses on the position of Maffeo Pantaleoni, a leading figure of the late nineteenth century ‘renaissance’ of Italian political economy, with respect to the eminent representatives of the two schools: Pareto and Marshall. Pantaleoni's position is examined with reference to the two main bones of contention between Pareto and Marshall, namely general as opposed to partial equilibrium, and pure as opposed to mixed economics.     

Jules Dupuit: A sesquicentennial tribute to the founder of benefit-cost analysis

Abstract

This article examines Slutsky's 1927 paper ‘The Summation of Random Causes as the Source of Cyclic Processes'. It provides an in-depth analysis of both the content and the reception of Slutsky's groundbreaking contribution by distinguishing between a ‘real' and a ‘statistical' interpretation of Slutsky's two related hypotheses, and also discusses the context of composition of the paper in the Moscow Conjuncture Institute. It then places the 1927 paper in the context of Slutsky's other work in economics and statistics, and highlights some lines of influence that have emanated from it. Various latent ambiguities in Slutsky's ideas are considered.     

Stabilizing consumer choice: the role of ‘true dynamic stability’ and related concepts in the history of consumer choice theory

Abstract

It is often argued that the inability of Arrow–Debreu general equilibrium theory to produce an adequate proof of the stability of the Walrasian price adjustment mechanism was one of the program's most significant failures. This paper will not question this standard interpretation of the history of general equilibrium theory, but makes the case that characterizing the ‘stability’ question in terms of market stability– in particular the stability of the equilibrium price vector in the Walrasian general equilibrium model – actually helped to stabilize the standard model of consumer choice in general equilibrium theory and elsewhere within microeconomics. The problem of the stability of ‘consumer's equilibrium’ was much discussed early in the twentieth century, and it has recently re-emerged in a different guise as the ‘endowment effects’ and ‘reference dependencies’ of contemporary behavioral economics, and yet it disappeared from mainstream discussion during the period 1950 to 1980. This paper argues that shifting the discussion from the intra-agent stability of the individual consumer to the inter-agent stability of the competitive market contributed – despite its ultimately negative impact on general equilibrium theory – to the long period of stable normal science consumer choice theory enjoyed during the middle of the twentieth century.     

Rights and wrongs of economic modelling: refining Rodrik

ABSTRACT

This is a critical discussion and proposed refinement of the inspiring account of the successes and failures of economic modelling sketched in Dani Rodrik’s Economics Rules. The refinements make use of a systematic framework of the structure of scientific modelling. The issues include distinguishing the discipline of economics from the behaviour and attitudes of economists as targets of normative assessment; nature and sources of success and failure in modelling; the key role of model commentary; model transparency; purposes and audiences of modelling; the nature of critical assumptions; negligibility, applicability, and tractability in modelling; the possibility of generally applicable models; and economics fundamentalism. The proposed refinements submit sharper formulations for some of Rodrik’s ideas and supplement others, but they also reveal tensions and relieve some – not yet all – of these.     

‘A judicious and industrious compiler’: Mapping Postlethwayt's Dictionary of Commerce

ABSTRACT

This paper takes as its guide the largest compilation of commercial knowledge of the mid-eighteenth century in the English language, Malachy Postlethwayt's Universal Dictionary of Trade and Commerce (1751–1755). Using network analysis, the many cross-references between entries in this work allow one to identify clusters of themes and literatures within the mass of materials. Pictures are presented that can be interpreted as ‘mind maps’ grouping the commercial literature by various topics and themes. The paper then focuses on one novel aspect of Postlethwayt's work, i.e., his inclusion besides entries on ‘practical’ topics of ‘political’ discussions, and identifies his sources.     

The New Economics of Labor Migration: Beware of Neoclassicals Bearing Gifts

Abstract

Until the emergence of the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) in the 1980s, migration scholars were largely divided into two main theoretical camps, viz. the neoclassical and historical-structural approaches to migration. Against this background, the NELM presented itself as a theoretical ‘third way’ between the two latter approaches, and purported to reconcile agency and structure in a way previously unachieved by either of them. While those pretensions gained a fair amount of acceptance and popularity, this paper argues that they are fundamentally misleading, and that the NELM is little more than a slightly more sophisticated avatar of the neoclassical approach to migration, whose fundamental weaknesses it has not, and cannot, shed. This paper further argues that, in so doing, the NELM effectively constitutes migration theory's own instance of economics imperialism, i.e. the attempt to advance the fundamental tenets of neoclassical economics (methodological individualism and the assumption of optimizing rationality) within the context of the study and interpretation of various social phenomena. In order to put forth these arguments, this paper provides a summary presentation of the standard neoclassical theory of migration, the historical-structural heterodoxy and the NELM; highlights why it is that the NELM should be regarded as a ‘reworked’ version of the neoclassical theoretical framework and discusses its inception in the context of the ‘information-theoretic revolution’ in economics; and argues for a new and improved ‘historical-structural synthesis’ as a more satisfactory alternative to both the NELM and the standard neoclassical theory.     

Foucault on the Marginal Revolution in Economics: Language and the Cartesian Legacy

Scholars have long debated the ‘revolutionary’ character of the ‘Marginal Revolution’ in economics, focusing on theoretical foundations, methodological devices, social context and political aspects. This article offers a new perspective by investigating ontological and epistemological conditions of that intellectual movement. This requires, in turn, a characterization of those conditions, for which purpose we will draw on Foucault's configurations of thought into ‘epistemes’ in The Order of Things. Although not mentioning those conditions, there have been few references in economics to Foucault's approach. They have mainly claimed that he neglected its importance because he did not see it as a ‘revolution’ in The Order of Things. It is argued here that he actually considered it a ‘revolution’ in The Archaeology of Knowledge. A revision of Foucault's account provides some ideas regarding deep philosophical conditions of the emergence of neoclassical theory and defies some usual interpretations of the circumstances that led to the mathematization of economics. The main conclusion is that its revolutionary character did not stem from a change of ontological beliefs, but—just as many historians of economics have defended—it was a methodological revolution. This study suggests a reinterpretation of that event, claiming that it resulted from a new conception of language and a crisis of Descartes's project of a mathematical unifying science. Going beyond that debate, these reflections proffer ideas that deserve an appraisal in economics.     

Rational vs historical reconstruction – a counter-note on Signorino's note on Blaug

Heckscher's 1919 article originated the Heckscher-Ohlin theory of international trade. In 1987 Carl Uhr pointed out that Heckscher in 1928 made another major contribution to economics in a German-language article on ‘intermittently free goods’, presenting ‘a theory of imperfect competition nine years ahead of that by Joan Robinson and Edward Chamberlin, and a discussion of collective goods not priced by the market’. This paper summarizes the salient ideas of Heckscher's article. It evaluates its merits, originality and significance for the history of economic thought, and how it fits into the ‘revolutionary’ developments of the theory of imperfect competition in the 1930s.     

The sceptic as an economist's philosopher? Humean utility as a positive principle

Whereas in philosophy David Hume was long regarded as a negative thinker to be criticized rather than read, many thinkers interested in social and economic theory from Adam Smith onwards found key concepts, distinctions and problems as developed by Hume useful and inspiring. This applies not only to his seminal contributions to technical problems in economics. It is argued that the way in which Hume employed ‘utility as a positive principle’ (most notably in his ‘experimental’ moral theory) is of pivotal importance in this context. It allows for:

a. distinguishing between internal motifs and external circumstances and constraints; and for

b. making explicit the abstract logic of social interaction structures, mechanisms and processes.

Both are necessary conditions for employing the logic of social situations and mechanisms in the explanation of social institutions and economic processes. It moreover prepares the ground for the use of simplified or cartoon-like models of individual agency in economic and social theory, but also for its critique. On this basis, Hume's influence on various strands of social and economic thought, but also the specific differences with regard to more ‘rationalistic’ approaches (such as Hobbesianism or important versions of neoclassical economics) can be assessed more clearly.     

Samuelson’s operationally meaningful theorems: reflections of E. B. Wilson’s methodological attitude

This paper sheds new light on Samuelson’s early methodology as presented in his Foundations of Economic Analysis (1947) by reflecting on the similarity between his mathematical economics and Edwin B. Wilson’s mathematics. Wilson was Samuelson’s professor of advanced mathematical and statistical economics; he was also a protégé of Josiah Willard Gibbs. Wilson defined mathematics as a language that consisted of three interconnected aspects: postulational, axiomatic, and operational. In his Foundations, in a Wilsonian style, Samuelson wrote in the opening page, ‘Mathematics is a Language’ and claimed that he offered operationally meaningful theorems. In this paper, it is argued that these maxims embodied Wilson’s approach, which framed Samuelson’s mathematical and statistical thinking around 1940 and which led him to present his work as being mathematically, theoretically, and empirically well founded. Wilson’s and Percy Bridgman’s operational methodologies are also compared and Wilson is presented as a mediator between Bridgman and Samuelson.     

Is ‘new’ behavioral economics ‘mainstream’?

When comparing ‘new’ and ‘old’ behavioral economics (BE), many argue that ‘new’ BE has close ties with what is often called ‘mainstream’ economics. The aim of this paper is to reframe the ‘old’ vs. ‘new’ BE debate and investigate the nature of the relationship between psychologists, behavioral economists, and ‘mainstream’ economists. This will lead us to develop the concept of ‘space of interaction’, building on Galison’s metaphor of ‘trading zones’, to emphasize the role of outsiders, strategic thinking, and negotiation in ‘new’ BE. By discussing some often implicit arguments in an otherwise disconnected literature, we seek to bring new arguments to the discussions through a careful study of those relationships in the history of ‘new’ BE and its more recent developments. Leaving aside the orthodox/heterodox contrast and comparative approaches, we hope to provide a different account of the changes in ‘new’ BE and its relationship with the ‘mainstream’.     

The specificity of manufacturing in Marx's economic thought

Abstract

This article examines Marx's approach to manufacturing and the extent to which manufacturing could be considered to have a special place in Marx's economic thought, especially in relation to accumulation and growth. The important ‘progressive’ features of manufacturing that can be found in Marx's writings and which are discussed here include: division of labour; socialisation of labour; mechanisation; increasing returns to scale; learning-by-doing; technological advancement; and overall, superior potential for cumulative productivity increases. These insights anticipate some of the thinking around the specificity of manufacturing found in twentieth-century structuralist development economics and some heterodox schools of thought such as Kaldorian approaches. This article suggests an interpretation of Marx as having a two-dimensional conceptualisation of activity specificity, with not only sectoral but also ‘technological–organisational’ dimensions, where these two dimensions are not fully independent of each other.     

The arrow of time in economics: from Robinson's critique to the new historical economics

Abstract

How time is comprehended in economics is central to the type of discipline to which economics is analogized. Rejecting the symmetrical notion of time in classical physics, Joan Robinson emphasized the importance of ‘historical time’, and hence history. A new generation of economists – including Paul Krugman, Paul David, and Brian Arthur – took up Robinson's challenge, seeking to create a new historical economics by relating random or ‘accidental’ historical events in different ways to the necessity of economic rules, and finding that, as Robinson saw, scale effects were crucial. Their efforts, however, fell short of integrating history into economics.     

Neglected Implications of Neoclassical Capital-Labour Substitution for Investment Theory: Another Criticism of Say's Law

Abstract

Recent mainstream macroeconomic models take Say's Law for granted. This paper argues that the justification for this assumption is not found in general equilibrium theory but in the ‘neoclassical-synthesis’ (and then monetarist) criticism of Keynes, which relies in a fundamental way on a treatment of investment that turns out to depend not only on neoclassical capital-labour substitution (called into questioned by the Cambridge controversies) but also on an assumption of full labour employment that on the contrary should be a result of the analysis. This paper first criticizes the attempt to justify a negative interest-elastic investment function through adjustment costs, that is, without relying on traditional neoclassical capital-labour substitution, with special attention on the treatment in Romer's advanced textbook. Then it proceeds to its new contribution, the demonstration that an endogenous determination of labour employment raises questions about the capacity of decreases in the real wage to raise employment even accepting neoclassical capital-labour substitution, because when the latter is correctly understood the rate of interest does not suffice to determine investment; hence, there is an inevitable role for the accelerator (and Say's Law is thereby undermined). This was perceived by Dornbusch and Fischer but they did not realize that then reductions of real wages will reduce investment instead of raising it. Thus, the ‘neoclassical synthesis’ reply to Keynes is undermined even apart from the inconsistencies of neoclassical capital theory. So the paper exposes a deficiency of the neoclassical arguments in support of a tendency toward full employment, additional to the inconsistencies revealed by the capital critique.     

The Cambridge Tradition in Economics: An interview with G. C. Harcourt

Geoffrey Colin Harcourt has devoted a long and fruitful career to the development of themes associated with the Cambridge and Post-Keynesian traditions in economics. He is perhaps best known for his survey of the Cambridge capital theory debates (1972); but he has written widely on growth and investment, on effective demand, on pricing and distribution, and on the history of economics in the twentieth century. He has also written extensively on policy (2001a) and was a 'back room boy' for the Australian Labor Party for many years. During the Vietnam War, Harcourt was a leader of the anti-war movement in South Australia. The following interview focuses on the evolution of, and prospects for, the Cambridge tradition that stems from the work of John Maynard Keynes, Piero Sraffa, Joan Robinson, Richard Kahn, Nicholas Kaldor and Michal Kalecki. The interview took place in Professor Harcourt's rooms in Jesus College, Cambridge, on 5 September 2000.     

A historiographical exhumation of J.A. Hobson's Over-Saving Thesis: General theory versus historiography

Abstract

The discussion of J.A. Hobson's understanding of over-saving has been largely confined within John Maynard Keynes' famous critique in the General Theory. I argue that gauging Hobson's contribution by ‘general theory’, that is, by an ahistorical, non-evolutionary yardstick, is to miss the larger part of Hobson's achievement. Hobson's conception of over-saving was contained within an evolving historiography of capital accumulation and took on various meanings depending on whether Hobson was discussing a competitive or monopolistic environment. I show that Keynes' ‘corrected’ version of over-saving was implicitly contained within Hobson's analysis of an evolving monopolistic industrial structure.     

‘Anecdotal myths’: Tinbergen's influence on Harrod's growth theory

Abstract

In the history of economic theory, Harrod's transition from the explanation of business cycles in An Essay on the Trade Cycle (1936) to his well‐known growth theory in ‘An essay in dynamic theory’ (1939) has always been surrounded by some degree of speculation. One of the topics in that area of speculation concerns the (degree of) influence exerted by Tinbergen on the development of Harrod's growth theory during the 1936–9 period.

This paper argues that Tinbergen's influence on Harrod's work mainly took place on formal, mathematical, grounds, leaving methodological matters untouched. This matter is of some importance in understanding the success of what was initially considered by others as a ‘dynamic’ extension of the Keynesian research programme and later evolved, through the work of Tinbergen and Solow, into a neoclassical growth theory.     

The ‘Americanisation’ of West German economics after the Second World War: Success,failure, or something completely different?

Abstract

The paper examines the intellectual and structural change that German economics experienced after the Second World War. This development often was described as ‘Americanisation’, since it seemed to rest upon the influences of the American occupation regime. In contrast, the paper applies another meaning of ‘Americanisation’. It is considered a ‘discourse’ that serves to structure the disciplinary procedures to produce progress. As it can be shown by the adoption of Keynesianism and neoclassical microeconomics, the change of the discipline was not primarily driven by direct American influences. Rather, in some respect the German reception took a path of its own. That contradiction can be solved by a theoretical modification of the classical concept of ‘Americanisation’. ‘Americanisation’ there meant a change of the operational procedure of German economics to generate progress.     

Richard H. Thaler: A Nobel Prize for Behavioural Economics

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an overview of Richard Thaler’s career and the contributions to behavioural economics that earned him the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. It focuses on his role in exposing and making sense of empirical anomalies in orthodox economics, his analysis of mental accounting, and his work with Cass Sunstein on the notion of libertarian paternalism and the ‘nudge’-based behavioural approach to economic policy. It then considers his contributions critically and explores how, unlike previous behavioural economics, Thaler succeeded in getting his new approach to behavioural economics accepted by mainstream economists.     

The Issue of Efficiency and the Role of State in New Institutional Economics: A Critical Perspective

ABSTRACT

This article scrutinises and criticises the notion of efficiency and the role of state in the emergence and evolution of institutions and property rights within the tradition of new institutional economics. Specifically, the attempt is to criticise the efficiency view of the formation of property rights and institutions. It is shown that the efficiency concept cannot provide a sufficient rationale for explaining the origins of private property. Additionally, some recent developments of North's thought are critically scrutinised, showing that his theoretical apparatus could be conceived as a paradise for the eclectic. Further, the role of the state in different versions of the theory of property rights – with a special reference to North's treatment of the notion of state – is, also, critically examined. Although North’s work has virtues compared to the ‘naïve model’ of property rights by recognising and addressing the role of the state and the issue of power in the formation of property rights and institutions, he does not succeed in fully accounting for the existence of institutional arrangements, due to his adherence to an individualist framework.