Search results

1 – 10 of 136
Book part
Publication date: 18 February 2004

Steven G. Medema

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…

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

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-76231-089-0

Book part
Publication date: 18 February 2004

J.Daniel Hammond and Warren J. Samuels

The following materials were presented at a session of the History of Economics Society at its annual meeting, on July 6, 2003, at Duke University. Organized and chaired by Dan…

Abstract

The following materials were presented at a session of the History of Economics Society at its annual meeting, on July 6, 2003, at Duke University. Organized and chaired by Dan Hammond, the principal participants at the Roundtable were also, in order of speaking, Malcolm Rutherford, Ross Emmett, Warren Samuels, Brad Bateman, and Steven Medema.

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-76231-089-0

Book part
Publication date: 18 February 2004

J.Daniel Hammond

I will use Malcolm Rutherford’s paper, “Chicago Economics and Institutionalism,” as the basis for general comments about the historical enterprise of writing and evaluating the…

Abstract

I will use Malcolm Rutherford’s paper, “Chicago Economics and Institutionalism,” as the basis for general comments about the historical enterprise of writing and evaluating the history of institutional economics (or institutionalism). In doing so I will take liberties with Rutherford’s paper, some of which he may not approve. The thrust of my comments is to take Rutherford’s thesis (“There is an important sense in which Chicago economics has always been institutional,” p. 21) and run with it to find implications for the very idea of institutional economics. My conclusion is that the category institutional economics (or institutionalism) may have little historiographic value.

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-76231-089-0

Book part
Publication date: 18 February 2004

Abstract

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-76231-089-0

Book part
Publication date: 8 April 2015

J. Daniel Hammond

This paper compares the contexts of the writing of T. R. Malthus’s first edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798); its reception by William Godwin, to whom the…

Abstract

This paper compares the contexts of the writing of T. R. Malthus’s first edition of An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798); its reception by William Godwin, to whom the Essay was addressed; its interpretation by naturalists Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace; and its interpretation by modern commentators Kenneth Boulding and A. M. C. Waterman. The analysis helps explain how an essay that was written to defend social and economic institutions from critiques in utopian visions associated with the French Revolution came to be regarded as a model predicting overpopulation and exhaustion of natural resources.

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78441-857-1

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 30 October 2020

Andrew Farrant

This chapter explores a number of relatively unknown aspects of the controversy over Milton Friedman’s March 1975 visit to Chile through the analytical framework provided by James…

Abstract

This chapter explores a number of relatively unknown aspects of the controversy over Milton Friedman’s March 1975 visit to Chile through the analytical framework provided by James M. Buchanan’s late 1950s assessment of the economist-physician analogy. The chapter draws upon a range of archival and neglected primary sources to show that the topics which generally rear their head in any contemporary discussion of Friedman’s visit to Chile – for example, whether it is appropriate to provide policy advice to a dictator – were aired in a largely private mid-1970s exchange between Friedman and a number of professional associates. In particular, the controversy over Friedman and Chile began several months before Friedman arrived in Santiago.

Details

Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology: Including a Symposium on Sir James Steuart: The Political Economy of Money and Trade
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-83867-707-7

Keywords

Book part
Publication date: 18 February 2004

Abstract

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-0-76231-089-0

Content available
Book part
Publication date: 8 April 2015

Abstract

Details

A Research Annual
Type: Book
ISBN: 978-1-78441-857-1

1 – 10 of 136