Search results

The year 1848 is considered by historians as a political and economic turning point in France: a major political crisis took place in the form of the February Revolution, accompanied by extensive financial troubles for the French government. The economists of that time actively debated the economic causes and consequences of the crisis. This chapter is devoted to the analysis of these financial controversies in French economic thought around 1848. If the political and philosophical debates of 1848 between the liberals and the socialists are quite well known by historians of economic thought, their financial side has been relatively neglected. According to the authors of this chapter, it is nevertheless of great interest to examine the liberal and socialist ideas of that time. This chapter aims to investigate this little-studied question by raising three main issues: the first one consists of presenting the different diagnoses of the 1848 financial crisis from socialist and liberal viewpoints. Second, it proposes an analysis of the content of theoretical controversies about ways to overcome the financial troubles, particularly regarding the trade-off between taxation and debt. Lastly, it emphasizes the role of this period for the subsequent constitution of a financial orthodoxy in France.

Today, there is no academic or sociocultural context in which Austrian Economics (AE) is described as being dominant. AE is and remains, for better or for worse, a heterodox current. In the United States, however, but probably nowhere else in the world, AE is heterodox without being invisible or inconsequential. American scholars for whom AE is their preferred paradigm have been able to participate actively in the sort of “discussions” that Arjo Klamer (2007, p. 4) wishes to encourage. They are taken seriously by fellow economists. The vitality of American AE has no equivalent in the rest of the world.¹ Obvious constraints of time and space prevent us from offering supporting evidence for this sweeping statement, but in this paper we propose to take a close look at the French case. AE has made few inroads in France. There was a brief period in the 1980s when it was the object of some short-lived enthusiasm; since then interest has waned, although there are indications that the tide might yet again be turning, and in fact, as compared to many other western European countries, France may turn out to be, all things being relative, a less infertile ground than might a priori be thought.

Over the last three quarters of a century, the discourse on economic and social policy has oscillated between two polar opposites: an interventionist approach and a free market-oriented one. The former led to the establishment of the Keynesian welfare state and was dominant in the post-war years, but the latter gained much ground beginning in the 1980s, forcing defenders of the welfare state to retreat into a more defensive position. In the wake of the ‘Great Recession’, however, these two visions are once again sustaining vigorous debates in the global public arena. Economists in their role as policy advisers and public intellectuals, in other words as ‘experts’, have participated actively in such debates; the gains made by (what its critics call) ‘neo-liberalism’ were due, in no small measure, to the growing prestige and influence of Austrian economics. The experts’ discourse tends to be a historical and arguments are often phrased in terms of supposedly ‘cutting edge’ theoretical and empirical advances.¹ Yesterday's theories are judged obsolete and irrelevant. I argue that a more historically informed perspective can actually be more rewarding.

Aversion to liberalism and socialism was indeed a trademark of Catholic economic thought from Rerum Novarum onwards and therefore many Catholic economists are to be found among those looking for a third way. François Perroux and Maurice Byé were among the most prominent of them. They partook a closeness to the Catholic church and a good knowledge of Brazil through their missions in this country. But they differed in their methodology and in their approach to the European Union. Byé remained firmly rooted in the methodological individualism whereas Perroux’ approach seem too fuzzy to be characterized. These differences are obvious in their treatment of the European issues where Perroux’ stance for a Europe without shores contrasts with Byé’s successful recommendations for a step-by-step construction of the Little Europe. After six decades it is time to bring Byé out of the shadows.

Feminization of medicine in France has come about in several stages, in connection with student and medical specialists recruitment. Its dynamics show that it can’t be considered as a virtually definitive gender reversal, but should rather be viewed as a dynamic recomposition closely related to societal changes and economic situations. I explain the way women succeeded in entering medicine via the concours, and how their situation has often given rise to wrongful interpretations concerning their ‘choices’. Finally, I reflect on the complex connections between feminization and the democratization of medical recruitment, on the one hand, and with the transformations within the liberal model in medicine, on the other. I conclude that the feminization of medicine questions a wide array of social relations in the domains of family, health, economics and politics, as a complex social fact.

The law in a liberal state is often a violent instrument. So said Robert Cover. Among those communities to which the law has been particular cruel are Native Americans. Indeed, the traditions and practices of Native American tribes have spawned rich and fascinating narratives. Each tribe has created its own “nomos – its own normative universe” – with a distinct set of rules, expectations, and tenets. Even still, the state and federal governments have historically challenged Native American traditions and culture with various legal and judicial policies. Insofar as the state-imposed law is blunt and imprecise, certain Native American narratives are thus threatened. Over the past decade, several judicial cases have highlighted the clash between the state’s imperial authority and Native American narratives. Our chapter explores these court cases with an eye to the inevitable conflicts that emerge when law exists uneasily in a liberal state.