Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T18:43:17.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE OLD GENERATION OF ECONOMISTS AND THE NEW: AN INTELLECTUAL HISTORIAN’S APPROACH TO A SIGNIFICANT TRANSITION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

DONALD WINCH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article contrasts an intellectual history perspective on the transition from classical to neo-classical economics with doctrinal accounts of the marginal revolution. Marshall’s opinions on the mixture of theoretical, methodological, and moral and political elements involved in the generational divide shows that more was at stake than accounts in which theory alone is stressed suggest. It is also argued that in other respects less was at stake: drawing a sharp dividing line between pre- and post-marginal treatments of policy issues does not do justice to underlying continuities in the empirical utilitarian tradition. The article is dedicated to the memory of R. D. C. (Bob) Black, whose work on Jevons illustrates the benefits of an intellectual historian’s approach to this significant transition in economic thinking.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 23 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aspromourgos, Tony. 1986. “On the Origin of the Term ‘Neoclassical’.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 10 (3): 265–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birken, Lawrence. 1988. “From Macroeconomics to Microeconomics: The Marginalist Revolution in Sociocultural Perspective.” History of Political Economy 20 (2): pp. 251–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. D. C. 1971. The Theory of Political Economy, by Jevons, W. S., Pelican Classics edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Black, R. D. C. (with R. Könekamp).1972–81. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, 7 volumes. London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. D. C. 1981. “W. S. Jevons, 1835–82.” In O’Brien, D. P. and Presley, John R., eds., Pioneers of Modern Economics in Britain. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Black, R. D. C. 1983. “The Irish Dissenters and Nineteenth-Century Political Economy.” Hermathena 135: pp. 120–37; also in Black 1995, pp. 34–51.Google Scholar
Black, R. D. C. 1995. “Transitions in Political Economy.” In Economic Theory and Policy in Context; The Selected Essays of R. D. Collison Black. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 163–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. D. C., Coats, A. W., and Goodwin, C. D., eds. 1973. The Marginal Revolution in Economics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1973. “Was There a Marginal Revolution?” In Black et al. 1973, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Bradley, Ian and Howard, Michael, eds. 1982. Classical and Marxian Political Economy; Essays in Honour of Ronald L. Meek. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colander, David. 2000. “The Death of Neoclassical Economics.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (2): pp. 127–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collini, Stefan, Whatmore, Richard, and Young, Brian, eds. 2000. Economy, Polity, and Society; British Intellectual History 1750–1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John and Gagnier, Reginia. 1999. “The Ends of Economics.” In Woodmansee, and Osteen, , eds., The New Economic Criticism; Studies at the Intersection of Literature and Economics. London: Routledge, pp. 175–89.Google Scholar
Gagnier, Reginia. 2000. The Insatiability of Human Wants; Economics and Aesthetics in Market Society. University of Chicago Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Groenewegen, Peter. 1995. A Soaring Eagle; Alfred Marshall, 1842–1924. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1983. Classics and Moderns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hollander, Samuel. 1979. The Economics of David Ricardo. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1936. General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1971–89. Essays in Biography. In The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, 30 volumes. London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society, volume X.Google Scholar
Lipkis, J. M. 1993. “Historians and the History of Economic Thought: A Response.” History of Political Economy 25 (1): pp. 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodewijks, John. 2003. “Research in the History of Economic Thought as a Vehicle for the Defense and Criticism of Orthodox Economics.” In Samuels, W., Biddle, J. and Davis, J., eds., A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 655–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1885. “Theories and Facts about Wages.” Cooperative Wholesale Societies’ Annual, 1885, as reprinted in Industrial Remuneration Conference; Report of the Proceedings. London: Cassell, pp. 186–99.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1961. Principles of Economics, 9th variorum edition with annotations by Guillebaud, C. W., 2 vols. London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1969. “Three Lectures on Progress and Poverty.” Reprinted in Journal of Law and Economics 12 (1): pp. 181–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Alfred and Marshall, Mary Paley. 1879. The Economics of Industry. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Denis. 1981. “Ricardian Economics and the Economics of Ricardo.” Oxford Economic Papers 33: pp. 352–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, Denis. 1990. “Marshall’s Work in Relation to Classical Economics.” In Whitaker, J. K., ed., Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–63.Google Scholar
Peach, Terry. 1993. Interpreting Ricardo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigou, A. C., ed. 1925. Memorials of Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, Tiziano, Becattini, Giacomo, and Dardi, Marco. 2006. The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sraffa, Piero. 1960. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toynbee, Arnold. 1923. Lectures on the Industrial Revolution, 7th impression. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
Veblen, Thorstein. 1899–1900. “The Preconceptions of Economic Science.” Quarterly Journal of Economics XIII and XIV: pp. 396–426 and 240–69.Google Scholar
Whitaker, John K., ed. 1990. Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Whitaker, John K., ed. 1996. The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Economic Society, 3 volumes.Google Scholar
White, Michael. 1996. “ ‘No Matter of Regret’: The Cambridge Critique(s) of Jevons’ Hedonics.” In Groenewegen, P., ed., Economics or Ethics? London: Routledge, pp. 103–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Winch, Donald. 2005. “The Problematic Status of the Consumer in Orthodox Economic Thought.” In Trentmann, F., ed., The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power, and Identity in the Modern World. Oxford and New York: Berg, pp. 31–51.Google Scholar
Winch, Donald. 2008. “Marshall Revived.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 30 (1) (March): pp. 127–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winch, Donald. 2009. Wealth and Life; Essays on the Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1848–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woodmansee, Martha and Mark, Osteen, eds. 1999. The New Economic Criticism; Studies at the Intersection of Literature and Economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar