Search results
1 – 4 of 4Abstract
: Immigration in the colonial period was almost exclusively English plus geographically scattered others. Little immigration until after the War of 1812, still mainly English speaking. After 1840, a heavy influx of German (1850–1880), Irish, later Scandinavian immigrants in large numbers, especially after, but also during, the Civil War, 1860–1865. The heaviest immigration was from 1890 through 1910 up to World War I: Polish, Italian, Slavic, Russian and Romanian Jews, generally East European. Most immigrants were young people. Since World War I immigration has been light, due in part to restrictive policies after 1920, especially after 1927. Only slight immigration during the 1930s but more emigration, resulting in net emigration. Since World War II, considerable immigration but nothing like the period prior to World War I; relatively geographical distributed: refugees, nationals, displaced persons, etc., including the families of servicemen who married abroad.
Robert S. Goldfarb and Thomas C. Leonard
Distribution concerns who gets what. But does “who” refer to the personal distribution of income among individuals or the functional distribution of income among suppliers of…
Abstract
Distribution concerns who gets what. But does “who” refer to the personal distribution of income among individuals or the functional distribution of income among suppliers of productive factors? For nearly 150 years, Anglophone distribution theory followed the Ricardian emphasis on functional distribution – the income shares of labor, land, and capital. Only beginning in the 1960s, and consolidated by a research outpouring in the early 1970s, does mainstream economics turn to the personal conception of distribution. This essay documents Anglophone (primarily American) economics’ move from functional to personal distribution, and tries to illuminate something of its causes and timing.
Charles R. McCann and Vibha Kapuria-Foreman
At the turn of the twentieth century, various Socialist parties vied for a place in the American political system, making alliances where possible and convenient with elements of…
Abstract
At the turn of the twentieth century, various Socialist parties vied for a place in the American political system, making alliances where possible and convenient with elements of organized labor. Robert Franklin Hoxie, an economist at the University of Chicago whose principle contributions lay in his writings on the labor movement, wrote a series of essays in which he scrutinized the activities of the Socialist Party of America as it appeared to be at the time poised to become a viable force in American politics. This essay examines Hoxie’s writings on the conventions of the Socialist Party within the context of the political dynamic of the period and reveals his interpretations of events based on contemporary accounts and first-hand observations.
Details