Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T12:38:23.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On John Rae's Controversial Contributions to Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Syed Ahmad
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Rae, Scottish by birth, and a Canadian-Hawaiian (i.e. of the Kingdom of Hawaii) by residence, lived in Canada for about twelve years before the publication of his only work of significance in economies' and for nine years before he started writing it (James 1965,). He titled his book Statement of Some New Principles on the Subject of Political Economy, Exposing the Fallacies of the System of Free Trade and of Some Other Doctrines Maintained in the “Wealth of Nations” (1834) (obviously not a very memorable or popular title). The book was first conceived as an appendix to a statistical study of an aspect of the Canadian economy but, as sometimes happens, took a life of its own, in which references to Canada became merely illustrative and less frequent than to England, France or even China.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , Fall 1996 , pp. 207 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Ahmad, Syed. 1991. Capital in Economic Theory: Neo-classical, Cambridge and Chaos, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Ahmad, Syed. 1993. “John Rae (1834), Schumpeter (1911) and Amsden (1989) on Technical Change and Economic Development,” mimeo.Google Scholar
Ahmad, Syed. 1996a. “Smith's Division of Labour and Rae's ‘Invention’: A Study of the Second Dichotomy, with an Evaluation of the First,” History of Political Economy, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, Syed. 1996b. “Rae, Böhm-Bawerk, and Fisher on the Supply and Demand of Capital,” presented at the Bicentennial Conference on John Rae at the University of Aberdeen, March 27–29.Google Scholar
Amsden, Alice. 1989. Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization, Oxford University Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1962. “The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing,” Review of Economic Studies, 29, June, 155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bacon, Francis. 1620. Novum Organum, edited by Anderson, F. H. as New Organon, Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, Indianapolis, 1981.Google Scholar
Barrow, Robert. 1990. “Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 98, October, S103–25.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1980, 1992. The Methodology of Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen. 1884, 1900. Capital and Interest, 1: History and Critique of Interest Theories, Libertarian Press, South Holland, 1959.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen. 1889. Positive Theory of Capital, Libertarian Press, South Holland, 1959.Google Scholar
Brewer, Anthony. 1991. “Economic Growth and Technical Change: John Rae's Critique of Adam Smith,” History of Political Economy, 33, Spring, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannan, Edwin. 1898. A History of the Theories of Production and Distribution, Staples, London, 1953.Google Scholar
Copleston, Frederick C. 1958. A History of Philosophy, 5, Search Press, London.Google Scholar
Carey, Henry C. 1837–1840. Principles of Political Economy, Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1961.Google Scholar
Dorfman, Robert. 1993. “Fisher's The Rate of Interest and Böhm-Bawerk's Positive Theory of Capital,” Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Edgell, Stephen and Tilman, Rick. 1991. “John Rae and Thorstein Veblen: A Neglected Intellectual Relationship,” History of Political Economy, 23, Spring, 731–44.Google Scholar
Ferrara, Francesco. 1856. Introduzione, Biblioteca Dell Economista, 11, (Torrens, R., Bailey, S., Whately, Ricardo, Rae, G.), Torino.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1907. The Rate of Interest, Macmillan Company, New York.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1897. “A Neglected Economist: John Rae (Note),” Yale Review, 5, February, 457.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Craufurd D. W. 1961. Canadian Economic Thought: The Political Economy of a Developing Nation, 1814–1914, Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
Guccione, Antonio. 1993. “Ferrara's Theory of Value and the Cost of Reproduction Principle,” History of Political Economy, 25, Winter, 677–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrod, Roy F. 1939. “An Essay in Dynamic Theory,” Economic Journal, 49, March, 14–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 1741–42. Essays: Moral, Political and Literary, Henry Frowde, London, 1904.Google Scholar
Innis, Harold. 1950. Letter to James, R. W. dated June 10, 1950, quoted in James, 1965, 1.Google Scholar
James, R. Warren. 1951. “The Life and Work of John Rae,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 17, May, 141–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, R. Warren. 1965. John Rae, Political Economist: An Account of His Life and a Compilation of His Main Writings, 2 vols., Toronto University Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
Katouzian, Homa. 1980. Ideology and Method in Economics, New York University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, John N. 1899. The Scope and Method of Political Economy, Macmillan, London, 1917.Google Scholar
Lancaster, Kevin. 1966. “A New Approach to Consumer Theory,” Journal of Political Economy, 74, April, 132–57.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Earl of. 1804, 1819. An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth, Augustus M. Kelly, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Helmut. 1937. John Raes Werke, Seine Philosophischen und Methodologischen Grundlagen, Verlag M. Dittert, Dresden.Google Scholar
Mair, Douglas. 1990. “John Rae: Ugly Duckling or Black Swan,” Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 37, August, 275–87.Google Scholar
Mandeville, Bernard. 1723. The Fable of the Bees: or Private Vice, Publick Benefits, Edmund Parker, London.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. 1848. Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy, reprinted by Augustus M. Kelley, 1965.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. 1836. “On the Definition of Political Economy, and the Method of Investigation Proper to It.” in Essays on Some Unsettled Questions in Political Economy, 1844, Longman Press, London, 1877.Google Scholar
Mixter, Charles W. 1897. “A Forerunner of Böhm-Bawerk,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 11, Jan., 161–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mixter, Charles W. 1902. “Böhm-Bawerk on Rae,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 16, May, 385–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mixter, Charles W., ed., 1905. Sociological Theory of Capital, Macmillan Co., New York.Google Scholar
Neill, Robin. 1991. A History of Canadian Economic Thought, Routledge, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niehans, Jürg. 1990. A History of Economic Theory, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Pack, Howard. 1994. “Endogenous Growth Theory: Intellectual Appeal and Empirical Shortcomings,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, Winter, 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pack, Spencer J. 1991. Capitalism as a Moral System, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Rae, John. 1834. Statement of Some New Principles on the Subject of Political Economy, Exposing the Fallacies of the System of Free Trade and of Some Other Doctrines Maintained in the “Wealth of Nations,” Hilliard Gray and Co., Boston; reprinted in James 1965, 2.Google Scholar
Rae, John. 1825. “Sketches of the Origins and Progress of Manufactures and of the Policy which Has Regulated Their Legislative Encouragement in Great Britain and Other Countries,” Canadian Review and Literary and Historical Journal, March; reprinted in James 1965, 1, 195–206.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1968. The Theory of Economic Development in the History of Economic Thought, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. 1933, 1935. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul. 1994. “Two Classics: Böhm-Bawerk's Positive Theory and Fisher's Rate of Interest Through Modern Prisms,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 16, Fall, 202–28.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1911, 1934. The Theory of Economic Development, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1954. History of Economic Analysis, George Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Senior, Nassau. 1836. Outline of the Science of Political Economy, Library of Economic Science Reprint, 1938.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Random House, New York, 1937.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1759. Theory of Moral Sentiments, A. Miller, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1795. “The Principles which Lead and Direct Philosophical Enquiries. Illustrated by the History of Astronomy,” in Essays on Philosophical Subjects, Cadell Jr., T. and Davies, W., London and Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, Robert. 1956. “A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70, February, 65–94.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert. 1957. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, August, 302–20.Google Scholar
Spengler, Joseph J. 1959. “John Rae on Economic Development: A Note,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 73, August, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veblen, Thorstein. 1899. The Theory of the Leisure Class, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1981.Google Scholar
Viner, Jacob. 1927. “Adam Smith and Laissez Faire,” Journal of Political Economy, 35, April, 198–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar