Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T01:27:54.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

W. T. Thornton: Savant, Idiot, or Idiot-Savant?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Robert B. Ekelund Jr.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Renewed interest has been kindled in the status and “meaning” of William T. Thornton (1813–1880) in the history of economic thought. Thornton is often credited, rightly or wrongly, with re-orienting J. S. Mill's thought on the wages fund—a critical cornerstone of classical economics. While Thornton's actual influence on Mill in this matter

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Baxter, R. Dudley. 1868. National Income. The United Kingdom, Macmillian, London.Google Scholar
Breit, William. 1967. “The Wages Fund Controversy Revisited” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 23, 509–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, Kenneth. 1977. “Competition” in The History of Economic Theory, Arno Press, New York.Google Scholar
Dore, M. H. I. 1984–1985. “On the Concept of Equilibrium” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 7, Winter, 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupuit, Jules. 1853. “De l'utilité et de sa mesure. De l'utilité publique” in Mario de, Bernardi, ed., De l'utilité et de sa mesure, La Riforma Sociale, Torino, 1933.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. 1881. Mathematical Physics. London.Google Scholar
Egerton, Hugh E. 1926. “William Thomas Thornton” in Henry, Higgs, ed., Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy, Macmillian, London, 537–38.Google Scholar
Ekelund, Robert B. Jr., Furubotn, E. G. and Gramm, W. P.. 1972. The Evolution of Modern Demand Theory: A Collection of Essays, D. C. Heath, Boston.Google Scholar
Ekelund, Robert B. Jr.Paula, Grant, and Robert F., Hébert. 1966. “Saul at the Feet of Gamaliel: Classical Economics and the Friendship Between Mill and Thornton,” manuscript, Auburn University.Google Scholar
Ekelund, Robert B. Jr., and Thommesen, S.. 1989. “Disequilibrium Theory and Thornton's Assault on the Laws of Supply and Demand” History of Political Economy, 21, 567–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekelund, Robert B. Jr., and Walker, Douglas M.. 1996. “J. S. Mill on the Income Tax Exemption and Inheritance Taxes: The Evidence Reconsidered” History of Political Economy, 28, 559–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forget, Evelyn L. 1991. “John Stuart Mill, Francis Longe and William Thornton on Demand and Supply” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13, 205–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Scott. 1973. “The Wage-Fund Controversy: The Second Round” History of Political Economy, 14–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society” American Economic Review, 35, September, 519–30.Google Scholar
Hollander, S. 1985. The Economics of John Stuart Mill. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
Jenkin, H. C. Fleeming. 1870. “The Graphic Representation of the Laws of Supply and Demand” in Recess Studies, Edmonston and Douglas, Edinburgh, 151–85.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1957. The Theory of Political Economy, 5th ed., Augustus M. Kelley, New York.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E.. 1990. “The Fable of the Keys” Journal of Law and Economics, 33, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E.. 1994. “Network Externality: An Uncommon Tragedy” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 133–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E.. 1995a. “Path Dependence: From QWERTY to Windows 95” Regulation, 18, 33–41.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, S. J. and Margolis, S. E.. 1995b. “Path Dependence, Lock-In, and History” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11, 205–26.Google Scholar
Longe, Francis. 1866. A Refutation of the Wage-fund Theory, edited by Jacob, Hollander, Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1903.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1920. Principles of Economics, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1975. The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867–1890, edited by Whitaker, J. K., 2 vols., The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1869. “Thornton on Labour and its Claims” in Collected Works, V, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1967.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1871. Principles of Political Economy, edited by Ashley, W. J., Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1972. Later Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849–1873, in Collected Works, 14–17, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1990. “Smooth Operator: How Marshall's Demand and Supply Curves made Neoclassicism Safe for Public Consumption, but Unfit for Science” in Tullberg, R., ed., Alfred Marshall in Retrospect, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Negishi, T. 1986. “Thornton's Criticism of Equilibrium Theory and Mill” History of Political Economy, 18, 567–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Negishi, T. 1989. “On Equilibrium and Disequilibrium: A Reply to Ekelund and Thommesen” History of Political Economy, 21, 593–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, Douglass. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picchio, A. 1987. “William Thomas Thornton” in John, Eatwell, Murray, Milgate and Peter, Newman, eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Macmillan Press Ltd., London.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. J. 1955. “The Nature and Role of Originality in Scientific Progress” in Essays in the History of Economics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1848. A Plea for Peasant Proprietors; with the Outlines of a Plan for their Establishment in Ireland, J. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1864. “Strikes and Co-operation” Westminster Review, 25, April, 349–83.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1866. “A New Theory of Supply and Demand” Fortnightly Review, 6, 420–34.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1867a. “What Determines the Price of Labour or Rate of Wages?” Fortnightly Review, 1, May 1, 551–66.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1867b. “Stray Chapters From a Forthcoming Work on Labour. I. The Claims of Labour, and Its Rights” Fortnightly Review, 1, October, 477–500.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1869. On Labour: Its Wrongful Claims and Rightful Duties, Its Actual Present and Possible Future, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1870. On Labour: Its Wrongful Claims and Rightful Duties, Its Actual Present and Possible Future, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
White, M. V. 1994. “‘That God-Forgotten Thornton’: Exorcising Higgling after On Labour” in Neil De, Marchi and Morgan, Mary S., eds., Higgling: Transactors and their Markets in the History of Economics, History of Political Economy, annual supplement, Duke University Press, Durham, 149–83.Google Scholar
Yeager, Leland. 1960. “Methodenstreit Over Demand Curves” Journal of Political Economy, 68, 02, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar