C. E. Ayres's Reliance on T. H. Huxley: Did Darwin's Bulldog Bite?

In David Seckler's Thorstein Veblen and the Institutionalists, the proposition is advanced that “Ayres out-Veblens Veblen and out Deweys Dewey”. This commonly held view of the intellectual orientation of the prominent American institutional economist, Clarence Edwin Ayres, places him as an intellectual descendent of philosopher John Dewey's pragmatism, and economist Thorstein B, Veblen's institutionalist economics. Certainly such an outlook is not incorrect, but it is also not adequate if one is to achieve an understanding of Ayres. A careful check of the indexes of Ayres's major works shows that his references preponderantly go not to Dewey and to Veblen, but to Adam Smith and Charles Darwin, Moreover, it is to the latter that Ayres turned in his effort to overturn the former. However, Ayres in interpreting Darwin relied not upon Dewey and Veblen, but rather upon Thomas Henry Huxley, the British physician turned scientist, who because of his outspoken advocacy of Darwin's evolutionary biology became known as “Darwin's bulldog.”     

Ayres' Theory of Economic Progress: An Evaluation of Its Place in Economic Literature

A bstract . Clarence E. Ayres was unfortunate in certain of his critics; they missed the point. With the publication of a new edition of his classic. The Theory of Economic Progress , the time is ripe to re-evaluate Ayres' contributions. Ayres, like Thorstein Veblen before him, assimilated into economics the findings of other social science and humanistic disciplines, particularly anthropology. Both portrayed clearly the role in the economy of what Veblen called the matter-of-fact and Ayres 'technology,' The understanding of the role of technology and its extension in economic progress , implicit in Veblen, is made explicit by Ayres. Similarly the insight that certain entrepreneurial and financial activities which are ceremonial are non-essential to the technological process and hence dispensable is a contribution by Ayres to the one by Veblen that enables us to distinguish the scientific elements in economic theory from the theological.     

Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer

Abstract . Thorstein Veblen's case for a Technocracy, “The Engineers and the Price System,” has long posed an enigma: Why would a thinker as radical as Veblen align himself with a group as conservative as engineers? But engineers themselves had developed a political economy with important points in common with Veblen's analysis. Starting from their positions as technological experts in corporations, engineers came to believe that business methods were not efficient for production; this belief led them to develop systems of scientific management as an antidote to old-style management. Later, they expanded these ideas into a system of social management called Technocracy. This system of Technocracy represented an engineering effort at formulating an industrial democracy, with the cooperation of labor. Veblen was able to write a more systematic version of these ideas, because they fit in well with his own theoretical analysis.     

Veblen and the Political Economy of Technocracy: The Herald of Technological Revolution Developed an Ideology of 'Scientific' Collectivism

Abstract . In the early 1900s, engineers the United States began developing their own analysis of the economy. Thorstein Veblen, in The Engineers and the Price System, gave a systematic treatment of that analysis. But Veblen's approach to political economy was broader than that of the engineers. His understanding of social change was based on a two-part research program: First, recognize the institutional elements of social stability; then identify an operative force with technological values that could foster change. When applied to the U.S. of his day, this research program resulted in Veblen's seeing a conflict between pecuniary and industrial values. Veblen believed that the triumph of industrial values was crucial for making society compatible with mass-production technology. These values were held to by both engineers and industrial workers. Veblen's earlier works emphasized workers as being agents for social change; later he shifted his focus to engineers. In both cases he reacted to the social activism of each group.     

John Dewey and Henry George: The Socialization of Land as a Prerequisite for a Democratic Public

John Dewey frequently praised Henry George, author of a plan to confiscate land values with a “single tax.” Scholars have failed to account for Dewey's support of George. Some have argued that it should not be taken seriously because it is at odds with their interpretation of Dewey's philosophy. This article demonstrates that Dewey perceived the socialization of land values as an essential step toward creating a true democracy. Furthermore, Dewey's interest in George was not an aberration; it was exemplary of his faith in ideology, theory, and transformative social policy. Despite contentions to the contrary, pragmatists of the early 20^th century never emphasized skepticism, moderation, or rote empiricism. In fact, Dewey embraced the philosophy of Henry George as a general theory of history of society. During the Great Depression, Dewey attacked the piecemeal reformism of the New Deal in favor of the comprehensive vision of Henry George.     

John Hobson, Thorstein Veblen and the Phenomenon of Imperialism

Abstract . Although Hobson (1858–1940) and Veblen (1857–1929) both wrote extensively on imperialism, a systematic comparison of their views has yet to be undertaken. This is corrected with reference to three issues: their respective condemnation and explanation of, and remedy for, imperialism. The contexts in which they wrote is outlined and it is shown that on the basis of a shared definition of imperialism: (1) they both condemned imperialism on economic and political grounds, although Veblen's hostility was arguably the greater; (2) they both advanced dualistic explanations of imperialism, but whereas Hobson developed more fully and emphasized economic rather than ideological forces, the reverse was the case for Veblen; and (3) they agreed that modern imperialism could be remedied by the establishment of an international system of law and order. Veblen, however, was far less confident that this would solve totally the problem of imperialism and hence argued for the abolition of both capitalism and patriotism. The convergencies and divergencies in their analyses of imperialism may reflect the British liberal and American radical traditions that the politically involved Hobson and the iconoclast Veblen, respectively, operated within. There is a lesson for our time in their views.     

Symposium. An innovative approach to course restructuring in leadership education. Course restructuring in leadership education. Using differentiated literature to promote professional thinking. Pedagogical and andragogical challenges in leadership studies

In his germinal writing, The Child and the Curriculum, John Dewey (1902) made the forceful case for the development of a curriculum that could integrate and valuate students' desires and needs as crucial elements of education. Similarly, Ralph Tyler's (1949) famous and widely influential curriculum rationale called for the participation of the entire community as an element of curriculum decisions, but this element of his work has been largely absent from educational discourse, especially in a time of national accountability in elementary, secondary, and even postsecondary institutions. In this symposium, we offer a position paper by Dr. Cathy Kaufman that seeks to return students' needs to the forefront of curriculum planning for an interdisciplinary audience. Our respondents, Robert Millward, Ted Pappas, and Winnie Younkin, themselves representing interdisciplinary backgrounds and interests, add their own perspectives to this intersection of leadership education, and the all‐too‐often muted voice of the student in the curriculum development process.     

Henry George and the Classical Scientific Research Program: George's Modification of It and His Real Significance for Future Generations

Abstract . Henry George's revision of classical economics was based on a new “hard core” assumption linking efficiency, equity, and social welfare to a revised concept of property rights in land. However, rather than create new core supporting “protective belt” theories, George either accepted or, when necessary, modified existing classical theories especially those which threatened his new hard core, for example, classical “wages-fund” theory. Consequently, George's adaptation of the Ricardian “stationary state” model was less accurate than mainstream classical economics in its predictions concerning the behavior of the distributive shares of income over time, and the effects of technological change on economic growth and economic welfare. Without its own protective belt, George's classicism became a special case of classical economics whose value, nevertheless, existed in its effective criticism of classical property rights theory.     

Radical Individualism vs. Institutionalism, I The Division of Institutionalists into 'Humanists' and 'Behaviorists'

A bstract . David Seckler has filled an important gap in the methodological literature of economics by providing a "radical individualist" critique of American institutionalism (1). Seckler argues that institutionalists have been unable to develop a coherent methodology because of their ambivalence on the issue of " free will versus determinism." Thorstein Veblen, he says, entertained both "humanistic" and "behavioristic" hypotheses in his explanations of human behavior and, consequently, descended into obscurantism. The institutionalist literature in general reflects these contradictory methodological tendencies; for example, John R. Commons was a "humanist" , whereas Clarence Ayres was a "behaviorist." Seckler's critique is not, however, persuasive. He fails to recognize the difficulties inherent in the philosophical dualisms posited by "radical individualism," and he employs them credulously in his critique of institutionalism. Equally damaging to his argument is his failure to give adequate consideration to the meaning and significance of the "institutional dichotomy" in institutional analysis.     

Italian Debate and Dialogue on Thorstein Veblen

A bstract . In the first quarter of the 20th century, Thorstein Veblen ranked with John Dewey, George H. Mead, and Charles Sanders Peirce among the topmost American original and creative thinkers. In Italy he was the subject of much debate and dialogue but the perception of his scholarly work evolved through several phases. He was seen first as a forerunner of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Then as a leading figure in institutional economics. Finally as a social scientist pioneering in the interdisciplinary approach to analysis and to the formulation of public policy , as well as an early Futurologist But his considerable influence in America contrasts with his lack of influence in Italy, probably because cultural differences hamper understanding.     

The Changing Relationship Between Economic Sociology and Institutional Economics

A bstract In his early work. Talcott Parsons severely criticized Old Institutional Economists like Thorstein Veblen and Clarence Ayres. Parsons'main objection was that institutional economics had a misconceived view on the scope of economics: institutions, being the embodiment of values, were the proper subject of sociology rather than economics. By arguing for a clear-cut division of labor between economics and sociology. Parsons legitimated the divide between the two disciplines that came into being in the years to follow. Recently however, the relationship between economic-sociology and institutional economics has changed dramatically. New Economic Sociology (advocated by scholars like Mark Granovetter and Richard Swedberig) rejects the division of labor proposed by Parsons. By-providing substitutes rather than just complements to economics, it tries to counter economic imperialism. This creates significant similarities between New Economic Sociology, Old Institutional Economics and the recent return of institutionalism in economic theory. However, the quest for a division of labor between economics and sociology remains unfinished.     

Henry George: The Economist as Moralist*

Abstract . Henry George derived his economic theory from his personal experience. He had the good fortune to be living in California during his formative years; there the economic events which transpired during the settlement of the North American continent—the passing of the frontier and its consequences—occurred within a time span of a few years and the telescoping of history gave him the framework for an original economic system, as well as a utopian vision of a free society. Much attention has properly been paid to George's economic ideas but he was also a moralist, one accepted by some philosophers as among the greatest. This aspect of his work, and particularly his value theory, have been neglected.     

Locke's Contract: would People consent to It?

Abstract . Examination of Locke's theory political obligation suggests some of the difficulties which beset any consent theory. Stress is placed on the need for the state of nature as a real alternative to civil society, if Locke is to maintain that people have consented. It is shown that Locke has precluded a decision to remain in the state of nature and, therefore, people have not consented. This conclusion inspires a reconstruction of Locke's theory wherein people consent hypothetically: they would consent to legitimate government, if they had the opportunity to found government anew. What would they consent to? What are the criteria of legitimate government? The provisions of the Lockeian contract set out and found wanting People, as Locke sees them and living under conditions which he describes, would not consent to his contract.     

Henry George's Thought in Relation to Modern Economics

Abstract . Henry George's influence on economic thought has been neglected although his readers included Clark, Marshall, Hobson, Commons, Lerner and Böhm-Bawerk and his ideas provoked thought and discussion, Clark made clear that George stimulated him to develop his marginal productivity theory. But the 19th century American theorist affected or touched upon the neoclassical concept of capital, the theory of externality, the neoclassical versus the classical concept of monopoly; the entitlements approach to distributive justice; the burden of debt and other transfer incomes and capital formation and the theory of expectations. George's influence is wider than generally recognized. The last of the classical economists, he wrote in high Victorian prose about some very modern problems.     

In Memory of the Father: Laurence S. Moss

A personal reflection on the life and philosophy of the late Laurence S. Moss (former editor of the AJES) by his son, Joshua Louis Moss. Mixing personal anecdote with a general academic analysis, Moss informally examines his father's intellectual beginnings in the 1960s drawn from the lectures of Ludwig Von Mises, and traces this through his father's development of innovative teaching techniques like the incorporation of stage magic. Moss examines his father's intellectual contrarianism and canonical skepticism as key developmental foundations used to build his father's academic and pedagogical approach. Moss examines his father's interest in expanding economics through a cross‐disciplinary approach utilizing philosophy, history, sociology, and performance studies through his father's innovative examination of points of contact between the principles of stage magic and the principles of economic theory.     

John A. Hobson: Economic Heretic

Abstract . John A. Hobson was a self-styled economic heretic who developed and original and remarkably comprehensive system of economic and social thought. This system is based on certain distinctively Hobsonian concepts and theories. Hobson's economic heresies were based on his theory of distribution in which he rejected orthodox marginal productivity theory and developed a theory of economic surplus the distribution of which is determined by economic power. This underlay his theory of under-consumption which in turn was used to explain and analyze economic and social issues such as unemployment, the business cycle, the labor movement, imperialism and taxation. Hobson was also critical of the whole methodology of economic science on the grounds that it abstracted from human welfare in its widest sense. He argued that proper values should be introduced into the study of economic activity so that it could assist in the attainment of the best conditions of human life, both social and individual.     

Henry George and the Contemporary Debate over Industrial Protectionism

Abstract . The central question of Henry George's 1886 book. Protection or Free Trade, commemorated now after a century, was: do protectionist policies help or hinder the working man Have George's concerns in 1886 since become outdated or anachronistic? If not, what are some historic trends toward protectionism since that time? Some of the formal arguments for and against protectionism are examined. George contended that protectionism threatens labor unions and reduces workers’wages. An apparent counterexample is provided by the International Ladies’Garment Workers’Union, which now actively lobbies for protectionist legislation. Its arguments have merit when protectionism is viewed instrumentally, but one must recognize that there are substantive objections to protectionism as a comprehensive national policy. George linked protectionism to paternalism; his theory of economic value as well as his model of the rational economic man are derived from basic democratic principles which stand at sharp odds with the implicit paternalism of tariff policies.     

Henry George the Classical Model and Technological Change:*The Ignored Alternative to the Single Tax in Progress and Poverty

Abstract . Henry George's vision of land monopolization as the source of growing rentier income was compatible with all elements in the predominant Ricardian-Millian classical distribution model except the rent-reducing effects of technological change and Malthusian population growth as the catalyst underlying income distribution. Since George also rejected Malthusianism on ethical and philosophical grounds, his analysis focused on the autonomous nature of rent income with respect to population and technological change. George analyzed the distributive consequences of both increasing technology with constant population, and constant technology with increasing population. In the latter case, George, in an ultimate rejection of Malthusianism, demonstrated an optimistic increasing returns to scale of population growth. However, although capable, George never considered a logical extension of his analysis, namely, the dynamic case of changing population, technology, and increasing returns. This analysis would have contradicted his predictions of the trend in relative income shares and the uniqueness of the single tax as the solution to social and economic distress.     

Henry George and Europe: As Dissident Economist and Path-breaking Philosopher, He was a Catalyst for British Social Reform

Abstract . Henry George's influence was greater in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The 80s and 90s there were particularly favorable for the reception of his revolutionary ideas. Though, thanks to such thinkers as Alfred Russell Wallace and James and John Stuart Mill, a land reform movement already existed, its sudden rise to national significance was due to George. George's writing and speaking skills and his dedication moved many serious citizens into the political Left and heavily influenced men and women who became leaders of British non-Marxian socialism, at the formation and consolidation of their movement. While George's followers broke with both the Wallace and socialist movements, George's rhetorical talents awakened the broad circles of thinking people to a consciousness of the full range of the social question.