Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

John Neville Keynes's Solution to the English Methodenstreit

  • Gregory Moore (a1)

John Neville Keynes is best known for being the father of John Maynard Keynes and for writing The Scope and Method of Political Economy (1891). The lesser of these achievements was widely accepted as the definitive methodological tract in the field of political economy in the late-Victorian period. In this publication Keynes shed new light on many of the pressing methodological and epistemological problems of the day; he supplied the methodological underpinnings to Alfred Marshall's majestic synthesis of late-Victorian theoretical opinion, as articulated in his Principles of Economics (1890); and, whatis of paramount concern to me in this paper, he employed some deft rhetoric to hasten the end of the long and acrimonious methodological debate between the orthodox and historical economists that is now generally referred to as the English Methodenstreit or “battle of methods.” Keynes consciously strove to provide a solution to the “battle of methods” that would be acceptable to both the orthodox and historical economists and, for this reason, The Scope and Method is understandably characterized by a conciliatory tone and repeated, almost desperate, attempts to see value in arguments from both sides of the conceptual divide. Keynes nonetheless failed in his quest to be even-handed. He was a logician of the first order who was extremely impressed by the neat logical lines of the orthodox framework, and hence, for all his intellectual honesty and obvious good will, he could not help but interpret the debate through orthodox spectacles. The chief rhetorical ploy he drew upon to achieve this orthodox-leaning settlement between the principal antagonists was the unconscious one of the “passive-aggressive” in which the advocate repeatedly makes the outward motions of conceding ground while, in effect, conceding little. The specific mechanics of this strategy entailed reformulating each precept from the historicist conceptual framework so that it would not be in conflict with its nearest orthodox opposite (itself carefully reinterpreted by Keynes), either by showing that it was identical to this orthodox opposite or by arguing that different precepts were appropriate in different situations, and then dismissing the entire methodological debate—which was then in its third decade—as one long and lamentable misunderstanding. Keynes was ably assisted in executing this strategy by his Cambridge colleagues and, for this reason, the quest to settle the debate by providing orthodox interpretations of the precepts then at stake may be termed the “Cambridge solution.” Marshall and Henry Sidgwick played particularly important roles in carrying this rhetorical assault, as the former's more genuine sympathy for many of the historicist ideas and the latter's celebrated honesty made the Cambridge quest appear sincere.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

G. Argyrous 1990. “The Growth of Knowledge and Economic Science: Marshall's Interpretation of Classical Economists.” History of Political Economy 22 (3): 528–37.

W. J. Ashley 1907. “The Present Position of Political Economy.” Economic Journal 17 (68): 467–89.

W. J. Ashley 1927. “The Place of Economic History in University Studies.” Economic History Review 1 (1): 111.

R. D. C. Black , ed. 19721981. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, 7 vols. London: Macmillan.

J. H. Clapham 1922. “On Empty Economic Boxes.” Economic Journal 32 (127): 305–14.

R. H. Coase 1975. “Marshall on Method.” Journal of Law and Economics 18 (1): 2532.

A. W. Coats 1954. “The Historist Reaction in English Political Economy 1870–1890.” Economica n.s. 21 (82): 143–53.

A. W. Coats 1968. “Political Economy and the Tariff Reform Campaign of 1903.” Journal of Law and Economics. 11 (04): 181229.

P. Deane 2001. The Life and Times of J. Neville Keynes: A Beacon in the Tempest. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

H. S. Foxwell 1887. “The Economic Movementin England.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 2 (10): 84103.

N. S. B. Gras 1927. “The Rise and Developmentof Economic History.” Economic History Review. 1 (1): 1234.

G. M. Koot 1993. “Historians and Economists: The Study of Economic History in Britain ca. 1920–1950.” History of Political Economy. 25 (4): 641–73.

A. Marshall 1892. “A Reply to Dr. Cunningham.” Economic Journal 2 (7): 507–19.

G. C. G. Moore 1996b. “Robert Lowe and the Role of the Vulgar Economist in the English Methodenstreit.” Journal of Economic Methodology 3 (1): 6970.

G. C. G. Moore 1999. “John Kells Ingram, the Comtean Movement, and the English Methodenstreit.” History of Political Economy 31 (1): 5378.

L. L. Price 1891b. “Review of An Introduction to Political Economy, by R. T. Ely, with an introduction by J.K. Ingram.” Economic Journal 1 (3): 609–11.

J.K. Whitaker 1972. “Alfred Marshall: The Years 1877 to 1885.” History of Political Economy 4: 161.

R. Yeo 1985. “An Idol of the Market-Place: Baconianism in Nineteenth Century Britain.” History of Science 23: 251–98.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of the History of Economic Thought
  • ISSN: 1053-8372
  • EISSN: 1469-9656
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-the-history-of-economic-thought
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 9 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 326 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd August 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.