Economic Theories, Protagonists, and Facts: Collected Essays in the History of Economic Thought by Maria Cristina Marcuzzo

Glenn Johnson's Notes from Frank H. Knight's Course in the History of Economic Thought, Economics 302, University of Chicago, Winter 1947. Glenn Johnson's Notes from Milton Friedman's Course in Economic Theory, Economics 300A, University of Chicago, Winter Quarter 1947. Glenn Johnson's Notes from D. Gale Johnson's Course on Income and Welfare, Economics 356, University of Chicago, Spring 1947. Glenn Johnson's Notes from John U. Nef's Course, Introduction to English Economic History, University of Chicago, Spring 1947. Glenn Johnson's Notes from Theodore W. Schultz's Course on Resource Administration and Policy, Economics 355, University of Chicago, Fall 1946. Mark Ladenson's Notes fromFrank W. Fetter's Course on The History of Economic Theory, Economics D-18, Northwestern University, Spring 1967. Notes on a Faculty Seminar Series on Comparative Method, by Stanley C. Ratner, Michigan State University, Spring Term, 1969. List of Contributors. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology. Documents on and from the History of Economic Thought And Methodology. Copyright page.

Other| June 01 1997 Rothbard, Economic Thought before Adam Smith: An Australian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1 and Rothbard, Classical Economics: An Australian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 2. Vol. 2 Murray N. Rothbard. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar, 1995. 528 pp. $99.95. Spencer J. Pack Spencer J. Pack Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google History of Political Economy (1997) 29 (2): 367–370. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-29-2-367 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Permissions Search Site Citation Spencer J. Pack; Rothbard, Economic Thought before Adam Smith: An Australian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 1 and Rothbard, Classical Economics: An Australian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. 2. Vol. 2. History of Political Economy 1 June 1997; 29 (2): 367–370. doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-29-2-367 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search Books & JournalsAll JournalsHistory of Political Economy Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 1997 by Duke University Press1997 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

Este trabalho analisa seis manuais de História do Pensamento Econômico (HPE) muito utilizados no ensino de graduação no país: “História do Pensamento Económico” de Mark Blaug, “História do Pensamento Económico” de Henri Denis, “O Pensamento Econômico em Perspectiva – uma história crítica” de J. K. Galbraith, “História do Pensamento Econômico” de E. K. Hunt, “História do Pensamento Econômico” de I. H. Rima, “História da Análise Econômica” de J. A. Schumpeter. O intuito é discutir como os autores destes livros explicitam diferentes objetivos e posturas frente à HPE e vão se diferenciar na apresentação de um evento na história das idéias econômicas e no tratamento dado ao pensamento de um determinado autor. Para tanto, escolheu-se a Revolução Marginalista como o evento a ser estudado e o pensamento de Nassau Senior. Pôde-se observar que tipicamente o autor do livro-texto faz escolhas retóricas e de estilo que adicionam o caráter de certeza factível e de convencimento ao fenômeno que está sendo descrito. No entanto, o tratamento dado aos fenômenos se diferencia. Dessa constatação emergem reflexões sobre o material bibliográfico utilizado e a maneira de ensinar a HPE.

In the Institute of Economics, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. an enlarged session of the Scientific Council on the history of the national economy and economic schools was held, together with representatives of Academies of Science, of Union Republics, scientific research organizations, universities and other institutes of higher education of the country. In this session the book 'History of Russian Economic Thought" (Volume I, Part One) was discussed as well as a project of the long-range plan of scientific research in the U.S.S.R. on problem of "The History of Economic Thought in the 19th and 20th Centuries." A report was presented by D. F. Virnyka on the basic tendencies of economic thought in the Ukraine in the 19th century and in the post-reform period. Communications of representatives of Institutes of Economics in the Republic Academies of Sciences were presented on the status and perspectives of work on the study of economic thought of the peoples of the U.S.S.R.

The study of the history of economics in Australia has just gone through an existential struggle of the greatest significance. On the surface it was only the most trivial of matters, a proposed clerical change in the classification of the History of Economic Thought by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). But, insignificant as it might at first appear, it was a proposal that had the potential to all but eliminate the history of economics as a legitimate academic study within Australia. The core issue was whether History of Economic Thought and Economic History were to be included as sub-disciplines of economics within the ABS classification system. The ABS proposal was that both groups were to be placed in an entirely separate category under the heading, `History, Archaeology, Religion and Philosophy?. Neither would any longer be classified in any way as belonging to the study of economics. It was this proposal that commenced a short but ultimately successful campaign to have both areas retain their position within the economics classification. But, short as it was, and as narrow as the issues might seemingly be, into this campaign was brought a national and international array of economists which included presidents of international societies in the history of economic thought, economists from throughout the upper levels of the public service in Australia, historians of economics from across the world and which even included the strong views of the 2006 Nobel prize winner in economic theory ...

In the very first edition of Business History T.S Ashton described economic history as 'the parent study', arguing that business history's principal role was to highlight micro-economic perspectives. Much has happened in the intervening 52 years to undermine this view. Indeed, business history would now claim to be a discipline in its own right, with flourishing academic journals, several textbooks, and a plethora of literature of both a generalist and case-study form. At the same time, it is vital not to overlook the enormous complementarities that link economic and business history, specifically for example in terms of better understanding such concepts as entrepreneurship, industrial structure, industrial relations, the impact of government policies, and the roles played by financial institutions in a modern economy. Business historians now think as much about the economic, social, political and cultural environments in which business operates as they do about business operations in their micro-economic context. Meanwhile economics and social science theory more generally has evolved new conceptual frameworks and methodological tools that allow the development of new perspectives in business and economic history. One might therefore argue that the two disciplines are now bound together much more extensively than they would appear to have been in the 1950s.This paper therefore argues that too much divergence between economic history and business history is both undesirable and unnecessary. Such an outcome might arise for example if business history were to become too strongly subsumed within the business school research agenda, embracing sociological and cultural methodologies to the exclusion of a productive relationship with economics. A further risk would be that micro-economic theory that has become useful for firm level analysis in fields such as corporate strategy is also lost to the history agenda. At its embryonic stage business history complemented economic history as a tool of further analyzing the residuals in total factor productivity models. Today it offers more than that, including dynamic theories of resource creation, sustained competitive advantage and corporate control. Economic history meanwhile provides suitable methodologies for business historians to model the performance of entrepreneurs or the consequence of managerial decisions.To exemplify the advantages of these overlapping approaches, the paper revisits a key theme in the economic history literature from a business history perspective: the loss of British competitiveness at the corporate level and consequent economic decline from the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, referred to in shorthand as the entrepreneurial failure hypothesis. An archetypal case study, Lancashire cotton textiles, is used for the purposes of reviewing this hypothesis. It is appropriate to do this, not least because business and economic historians have neglected what had been a productive research programme two decades ago. Most of the residual work has been done by economic historians, without reference to business history approaches, leaving an important gap for business historians to fill in a way which is helpful to the economic history agenda.The paper begins by tracing the origins of business history as a branch of economic history reviewing recent developments in business history as it has developed into a discipline in its own right. It then examines aspects of management theory that have inputted into this process, differentiating between those that are helpful to achieving a coherent programme of economic/business history research and those that are inimical. The former include the resource based view of the firm, and the related notion of dynamic capabilities, which when linked to processes of governance and corporate accountability, offer the potential to link economic theory and economic history with business history by providing a micro theory of the operation of the firm. The paper then updates the entrepreneurial failure literature in economic and business history and re-examines the evidence on Lancashire cotton case study using this integrating theoretical framework. In doing so it shows that there is much to be gaining from potential complementarities in a future economic and business history research programme addressing this, and wider debates. In outlining these potential complementarities for future research the paper will also set out an agenda for how economic and business history can work together in providing better insights into the operation of economic forces.

Donald Edward Moggridge (1943–2021)

Economic Thought and History looks at the relationship between facts and thought in historical economic research, viewing it in the context of periods of economic crisis and providing detailed analyses of methods used in determining the bond between economic history and economic theory. This interdisciplinary collection brings together international researchers in the history of economic thought and economic history in order to confront varying approaches to the study of economic facts and ideas, rethinking boundaries, methodologies and the object of their disciplines. The chapters explore the relationship between economic thought and economic theory from a variety of perspectives, exploring the relationship between history and economics, and the boundaries defining the history of economic thought, in terms of both single authors and schools of thought. The book offers particular insights on the Italian tradition of thought. The uniquely interdisciplinary and analytical approach presented here bridges the methodological gap between these disciplines, unearthing a fertile common ground of research. This book is intended for Postgraduate students conducting further research into the field, or for professors and academics of economic history and history of economic thought.

The relation between economic theory and history, as is crystallised in the history of economic thought, determined the evolution of economic history proper. The twin events of the Marginalist Revolution and the Methodenstreit were crucial in exiling history from economic theory. Moreover, the dominance of the narrative historiographical paradigm in historiography, till the first decades of the twentieth century, determined the absence of theory from economic history. This twofold hiatus is decisive in the short history of economic history. This paper attempts to delineate this gap by showing that an organic symphysis between economic theory and history is indispensable in the understanding economic phenomena.

The establishment of the School of Economic Science at MGIMO was due to the necessity of the world economy research, and the need to prepare highly skilled specialists in international economics. The school is developing a number of areas, which reflect the Faculty structure. - Economic theory is one of the most important research areas, a kind of foundation of the School of Economic Science at MGIMO. Economic theory studies are carried out at the chair of Economic theory. "The course of economic theory" textbook was published in 1991, and later it was reprinted seven times. Over the past few years other textbooks and manuals have been published, including "Economics for Managers" by Professor S.N. Ivashkovskaya, which survived through five editions; "International Economics" - four editions and "History of Economic Thought" - three editions. - International Economic Relations are carried out by the Department of International Economic Relations and Foreign Economic Activity. Its establishment is associated with the prominent economist N.N. Lyubimov. In 1957 he with his colleagues published the first textbook on the subject which went through multiple republications. The editorial team of the textbook subsequently formed the pride of Soviet economic science - S.M. Menshikov, E.P. Pletnev, V.D. Schetinin. Since 2007, the chair of Foreign Economic Activities led by Doctor of Economics, Professor I. Platonova has been investigating the problems of improving the architecture of foreign economic network and the international competitiveness of Russia; - The history of the study of problems of the world economy at MGIMO begins in 1958 at the chair baring the same name. Since 1998, the department has been headed by Professor A. Bulatov; - The study of international monetary relations is based on the chair of International Finance, and is focused on addressing the fundamental scientific and practical problems; - The chair "Banks, monetary circulation and credit" was created in February 2012. It is head by Professor G.S. Panova. The members of the chair are experienced bank employees; - The field of practical application of research results in the field of accounting, statistics and auditing has been expanding in recent years. The research in the field is conducted at the synonymous chair; - An important direction of development of economic studies at MGIMO is a risk management and insurance. Established in 1993, the Department of Risk Management and Insurance is headed by Professor R.T. Yuldashev.

Introduction - SECTION I: AN OVERVIEW OF ECONOMICS - Economic Methodology or How to do Economics - A Brief History of Economic Thought - Microeconomics and Macroeconomics - SECTION II: DEVELOPMENTS IN MICROECONOMICS - Game Theory and its Uses - Privatisation - Economic Theory and the Environment - Government Provision of Services: Health Care and Education - Taxation - International Trade: Old Theories, New Theories and the Single European Market - SECTION III: DEVELOPMENTS IN MACROECONOMICS - Macroeconomic Models - Unemployment, Inflation and the Phillips Curve - Exchange Rates and Economic and Monetary Union - Economics and Politics: Political Business Cycles and Independent Central Banks - Economic Growth: Old Theories, New Theories and Government Policy - Conclusion

Because I am what cricketers call an all-rounder, it is an especially pleasant task the editors have set me. As an undergraduate at Melbourne University in the early 1950s, I decided that I wanted to become a theoretical economist, though I had also thought of becoming an economic historian and I initially wanted to write my fourth year undergraduate dissertation on a topic in the history of economic thought. (I was dissuaded from doing so by a wise teacher who said that HET topics required maturity — in my case a never-never state, for I feel that I have gone straight from my first childhood to my second with nothing in between.) Nevertheless, as one of my two specialisations in my third and fourth (honours) years, I took History of Economic Thought. The other specialisation was Mathematical Economics. In those days the distinction between theoretical and mathematical economists did not exist, though we were told that the maths of our high priest, Paul Samuelson, in the Foundations … (1947) was said sometimes to be clumsy and inelegant.

Economic History, Economic Theory, and Soviet InstitutionsA Response to George Grantham Richard E. Ericson (bio) George Grantham has given us a fascinating glimpse of how he sees economics contributing to an understanding of history, largely focusing on its weaknesses. The springboard for his discussion is his reading of Yegor Gaidar’s Russia: A Long View, which provides the interpretation of Russia’s history that stood behind Gaidar’s partially implemented policies as acting premier of the Russian Federation in 1992.1 In the same spirit, let me present some thoughts inspired by my reading of Grantham’s thoughtful remarks. Economic History and Economic Theory Should we expect more from economic history than general, cautious “morality tales”? It seems to me that Grantham expects too much and is too disappointed when a lesson is unclear or evidently forgotten. But history’s signal seems neither as clouded nor as clear as presented. The economics of any situation is often eclipsed by the politics, particularly when its lessons are deemed by the elite to be socially/politically unacceptable. Culture, evolved through historical experience, clearly affects economic opportunities, choices, and outcomes, and often the application of economic analysis. Thus one of Grantham’s fundamental points, that we cannot draw any but the most general useful lessons from economic history, is undoubtedly correct. Indeed, economic theory and economic analysis give us no strong reason to believe that we should be able to do so, despite the simple stories we sometimes tell our students. What economic theory teaches us is always highly conditional, applying a major economic premise to a cloud of often poorly articulated—if indeed known—minor premises, including the particular historically embedded [End Page 891] details of time, place, and circumstance being analyzed. Economic theory does not provide lessons but rather a framework for thinking through economic issues clearly and consistently. It allows us to organize our knowledge and information and to systematically analyze the impact of those forces, incentives, and constraints that we believe significant. Applied in concrete historical circumstances, its “if–then” propositions are meaningless when the antecedent is false and always hard to apply with any confidence, “difficult to make operational in practical contexts,” as Grantham (861) notes. Thus the failure of economic history to give a definitive answer on the impact of tariffs on economic development, as Grantham notes (863–64), is hardly surprising. Because of the infinitude of factors not considered in those logical antecedents, they are always subject to wide interpretation, often driven by ideological preference or political or social prejudice. This can be seen in Grantham’s discussion of institutions favoring economic growth. Indeed, just what was the relation between “powerful private interests” (861) and powerful governmental institutions, pushing a progressive social agenda in the genesis of the crisis in home ownership, in the “expropriation” of homeowners in 2008–9?2 Only superficial analysis can give “loud and clear” signals (864). Thus the truly policy-relevant question in the Great Depression (and recent Great Recession) is not the existence and impact of the “persisting shortfalls in aggregate demand” (864) but rather the sources of those shortfalls and of their extraordinary duration—the structural, institutional, and policy foundations of the failure of economic activity and aggregate demand to recover as they had in the past. History, including the formation of deep social structures over time, imposes important constraints on economic development. Gaidar and Grantham correctly emphasize the overwhelming role of the state and its needs in Russia, which were drivers in the emergence of serfdom and its “collective responsibility” regime. As Grantham explains, “Gaidar believed that collective liability for taxes, instituted through the agency of a landlord or the commune (obshchina), impeded peasant enterprise, thereby depressing productivity growth. This view overlooks the administrative cost of directly taxing individual households.” (870). But the discussion fails to appreciate the damage that such constraints, however useful in facilitating state taxation, inflict on economic dynamism. The retarding factor, as Gaidar recognizes, is not the tax on relative wealth but the stifling effect on initiative, on experimentation and the pursuit of opportunity, that collective responsibility [End Page 892] imposes.3 Not only peasant but all other enterprise is impeded by collective...

South African Journal of EconomicsVolume 57, Issue 2 p. 120-124 Economic Sanctions and Interest Group Analysis: Some Reservations P. A. BLACK, P. A. BLACK Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch and Department of Economics and Economic History, Rhodes University, East London, respectively.Search for more papers by this authorJ. H. COOPER, J. H. COOPER Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch and Department of Economics and Economic History, Rhodes University, East London, respectively.Search for more papers by this author P. A. BLACK, P. A. BLACK Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch and Department of Economics and Economic History, Rhodes University, East London, respectively.Search for more papers by this authorJ. H. COOPER, J. H. COOPER Department of Economics, University of Stellenbosch and Department of Economics and Economic History, Rhodes University, East London, respectively.Search for more papers by this author First published: June 1989 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1813-6982.1989.tb00188.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume57, Issue2June 1989Pages 120-124 RelatedInformation

The article presents the results of theoretical justification and practical verification of modern possibilities of using the pictorial method (museum tours) in teaching the subject “The History of Economics and Economic Thought”. The article justifies the evolution of views on the range of sources on historical processes. A modern understanding of “a pictorial turn” in historical research was presented. The virtual museum as an informational resource, multimedia phenomenon, cost-effective model of museum space was considered. The educational experience of the EU countries in using modern methods of working with museum expositions to form economic thinking was studied. The need to turn the traditional paradigm of the museum as a center for preserving historical values into the educational interaction between the tourist student and the objects of the museum’s collection was proved. The article describes the content of the two-stage pedagogical experiment (between 2014 and 2018). The first stage explores the possibility of using educational museum tours and historically significant territories of cities as a method of studying the history of regional economics in the context of seminars. The author’s pedagogical product, that is regional thematic tours on the history of economics, was presented. The second stage develops and verifies the methodology of using online resources of Ukrainian museums (virtual tours, virtual exhibits) to organize the independent work of students in the context of this subject. The thematic catalog of online resources of Ukrainian museums for conducting research activities within this subject was created. The article presents research activities with the exposition of the virtual museum in the framework of the independent work of students. Based on the results obtained from the survey of students from higher education institutions of Ukoоpspilka, it is proved that working in the virtual museum space implies innovative, multidisciplinary, competence-oriented research activities, as well as an effective form of organizing independent work of students.