Search results

The period from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century is commonly associated both with the rise of the European nation state and with the beginning of economics. Samuel Clark's concern is only with the rise of the nation state, but is potentially important for understanding the early work on economics as this has often been linked with the rise of nation states. He approaches the problem through a comparative study of the British Isles and France during this period, though with frequent reference to earlier centuries. Even with such a restricted geographical spread, he argues that there was significant diversity in the process.

Alvin Hansen and John Williams’ Fiscal Policy Seminar at Harvard University is widely regarded as a key mechanism for the spread of Keynesianism in the United States. An original and regular participant, Richard A. Musgrave was invited to prepare remarks for the fiftieth anniversary of the seminar in 1988. These were never published, though a copy was filed with Musgrave’s papers at Princeton University. Their reproduction here is important for several reasons. First, it is one of the last reminiscences of the original participants. Second, the remarks make an important contribution to our understanding of the Harvard School of macro-fiscal policy. Third, the remarks provide interesting insights into Musgrave’s views on national economic policymaking as well as the intersection between theory and practice. The reminiscence demonstrates the importance of the seminar in shifting Musgrave’s research focus and moving him to a more pragmatic approach to public finance.

In their Foreword, Augullo and Guidi identify the objectives behind the design features of their long-term project. One objective is to study “the history of economics from the viewpoint of the economists’ relationships with the institutional and professional environment.” A second objective is that of comparative methodology, the “systematic and meditated comparison among national cases…so that the interpretive framework of each might be enriched by cross-fertilization.” A third objective is that “economics was rooted in institutional contexts and had itself over time become an institution—a doctrinal corpus of knowledge which permeates and frames the mind of the student body, scholars, professionals and public opinion at large” and to do so “not merely from the canonical standpoint of doctrinal or paradigmatic evolution” (AG, p. xi).

The rise of the regulatory state during the Gilded Age was closely associated with the development of institutionalist ideas in American academia. In their analysis of the emergent regulatory environment, institutionalists like John Commons operated with a fundamentally marginalist theory of value and distribution. This engagement is a central explanation for the ultimate ascendancy of neoclassical economics, and the limitations of the regulatory environment that emerged in the Progressive Era. The eventual rise of the Chicago School and its deregulatory ambitions did constitute a rupture, but one achieved without rejecting preceding conceptions of competition and value. The substantial compatibility of the view of markets underlying both the regulatory and deregulatory periods is stressed, casting doubt about the transformative potential of the resurgent regulatory impulse in the New Gilded Age.