J. DANIEL HAMMOND, NORMA JEANE MORTENSON, AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONALISM: A VIEW FROM THE TOP ROW

Abstract

The very subject of this roundtable and published symposium suggests that there is something going on, some smoke, here – that there is some distinction that scholars past and present have found it useful to make, legitimately or not, between American institutionalism on the one hand and, say, classical, neoclassical, Keynesian, and Austrian economics in the interwar period. One problem, of course, is that examining how “x” is different from “y” requires a specification of both what constitutes “x” and what constitutes “y.” Put another way, figuring out what constitutes “institutionalism” simultaneously requires defining “not institutionalism,” both in toto and its constituent elements. This is not an easy task when even the question of what it means to be “Keynesian” admits to no small number of (or even consistent) answers. And indeed, one could just as well ask whether “neoclassical” is useful as an historiographic category during this period.¹

Citation

Medema, S.G. (2004), "J. DANIEL HAMMOND, NORMA JEANE MORTENSON, AND AMERICAN INSTITUTIONALISM: A VIEW FROM THE TOP ROW", Samuels, W.J. (Ed.) A Research Annual (Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, Vol. 22 Part 1), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 203-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-4154(03)22012-5