Search results

Diagrams are ubiquitous in economics and are uncontestably among the most used, if not the most important workhorses of economists, though they come in many forms. This essay examines the different uses of graphs and diagrams in the pioneering work of two Victorian economists, Stanley Jevons and Alfred Marshall. We stress the difference between their use as representations and as visual reasoning tools, a difference that became obscured in the twentieth century with the rise of econometrics.

This paper aims to counter the view that Marshall was an opponent of the historical school. This false account has survived and prospered because it has fitted into more general conceptions of intellectual history, held by both orthodox and heterodox economists.

Marshall's affinity with the historical school is established by examining his writings and his relationship with historical school sympathisers in the UK.

It is established that Marshall regarded his work as building on historical school insights, and he repeatedly referred positively to the ideas of the German historical school. It is argued in this paper that Marshall's opposition to the historical school was confined to its anti‐theoretical wing, principally Cunningham. In other important respects Marshall's position was compatible with German and British historicism.

In preceding literature, Marshall's affinities with the historical school have been denied, unacknowledged, or unexplored.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the controversy surrounding the 2006 extension of the Macy brand to the Marshall Field's stores. Initial reactions, as well as on‐going resistance, to the re‐branding provide a means of understanding of the strength of retail brand, how it is established and whether “symbols and traditions” may be separated from retail brand per se.

The effort of Federated Department Stores (later Macy's Inc.) to rebrand Marshall Field as Macy's offers a unique opportunity to understand retail brand. This paper relies on news accounts for a chronology of events leading up to and following the Marshall Field's re‐branding as Macy's. In addition, analysis of postings to the customer‐originated fieldsfanschicago blog is used to understand, from the consumer's viewpoint, how retail brand is formed and to consider the strength of retail brand.

The paper concludes that retail brand may be as strong as product brand, that personal experience, as well as retailer‐controlled variables, is strongly associated with retail brand, and that retailer “symbols and traditions” are an integral component of retail brand.

This paper examines retail brand in the context of the extension of family brand. The use of blog posts permits a first‐hand account of how customers perceive retail brand and of how intense their attachment to such brands may be.

Marshall, Pigou, and Keynes on one side of the Atlantic, and Fisher on the other, had different approaches to the quantity theory of money. But they shared its basic framework, with the result that theoretical discussions did not prevent some degree of mutual support on policy proposals. If a divergence there was, at this stage, this pertained the feasibility of Fisher’s proposals, because Fisher’s enthusiasm for reform could find no match at Cambridge. This notwithstanding, and although in varying degrees, Marshall, Pigou, and Keynes were sympathetic with Fisher’s battle for “stable money.” Indeed, a fragment from the Keynes Papers shows that, at a very early stage of his career, Keynes paid great attention to Fisher’s empirical research on the relationship between “Appreciation and interest,” taking the relation between nominal and real rates of interest as a possible explanation of the trade cycle. For some time at least, this widened the common ground upon which Fisher’s proposals for “stable money” could find some support at Cambridge.

Duncan Bell’s project to restore late-Victorian and Edwardian debates on federative empire or a Greater Britain to international theory emphasizes the “political language” of civilization, race, and character available to fin-de-siècle thinkers on empire. In the process, Bell leaves out the contribution to these debates made by a key figure in the newly emerging discipline of economics: Alfred Marshall. Most recent writings on 19th-century empire similarly ignore the work of late-Victorian economists, as do recent efforts to map the terrain of international theory more broadly. Marshall’s writings on federative empire are not referenced by the advocates of Greater Britain that Bell carefully documents, but it is clear that Marshall followed those debates closely. And though he imagined his contribution as distinctly economic, his work unfolded in a similar language of civilization, race, and character, informed particularly by social evolutionary thought. In conclusion, I stress the dangerous temptation to sort the relevance of thinkers according to contemporary disciplinary boundaries so that more recent economists and the components of earlier political economic work that might be classed as economics are sifted out of our narratives of political thought. Instead, I see the debates on empire that Bell explores as unfolding in a language that, since the 17th and 18th centuries, has engaged issues of commerce and trade, social change, moral virtue, and the nature of political rule: political economy.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge Matthew Lorenzon’s contention that the late 1890s outcry demanding Melbourne University music professor G.W.L. Marshall-Hall’s removal from office was precipitated by his praise of war in an 1898 public address. It also disputes Lorenzon’s view that the belligerent, anti-philanthropic content of the address was inspired by Alexander Tille’s Social Darwinist introduction to four works of Friedrich Nietzsche which, Lorenzon says, Marshall-Hall had misread.

The paper analyses the speech and responses to it, comparing its content with that of the book and taking into account Marshall-Hall’s annotations and other relevant remarks. It also considers the broader situational context in which the speech was delivered with a view to identifying additional influences.

Despite superficial resemblances, Tille’s concern is with the physiological capabilities that determine the outcome of a universal struggle for physical survival, other qualities being important insofar as they contribute to such physiological power, whereas Marshall-Hall, driven by situational circumstances, focuses on contests for occupational pre-eminence in which physiology plays little part. While both men denigrate altruism they mean quite different things by it. Moreover, the speech had little to do with the ensuing furore, which stemmed primarily from offence caused by Marshall-Hall’s book of verse, Hymns Ancient and Modern. There is no reason to believe that he had misread Nietzsche.

The paper contributes to Marshall-Hall scholarship by arguing that the controversy was driven by purely local circumstances, not international debates about evolution.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse Charles Anthony Raven Crosland and Thomas Humphrey Marshall’s respective theories of equalisation and civic duty, and assesses the ethical criticisms made against these theories. Many of the ethical criticisms levelled against Crosland and Marshall argue that their theories focused exclusively on equalisation and social rights. In taking a morally neutral position, they neglected the duties that should be performed by citizens. This paper assesses the force of these ethical criticisms.

The paper begins by identifying the cardinal points of Crosland and Marshall’s theories of equalisation and the duties that should be performed by citizens. The author ask whether it is reasonable to conclude that they took morally neutral positions and neglected these duties. The author then explore and assess the critique levied against Crosland and Marshall.

Crosland took a passive stance on the intervention of the government in civic morality and did not develop a discussion of the duties that ought to be performed by citizens. Thus, in some respects, he cannot avoid the ethical criticism that he took a morally neutral position and neglected civic duty. Marshall did not discuss only equalisation and social rights, but also considered the duties that ought to be performed by citizens. Consequently, it is concluded that the ethical criticism of his theory is not valid.

The paper makes an original contribution in the understanding of three areas: Crosland’s moral neutrality, Marshall’s discussion on civic duty, and the ethical criticism of Keynesian social democracy.

The relationship between the economy and wider social structures and the extent to which these could be studied independently were important issues for both Marshall and Schumpeter. Marshall had clear views on the issue. As noted in the chapters by Arena, Hodgson, and Nishizawa, for Marshall, economics was concerned with the study of mankind in the ordinary business of life. Marshall warned against the separation of the study of economics from other social phenomena although he remained skeptical about the extent to which a comprehensive social science was possible.