Search results

The purpose of this article is to study how the German historical schools are treated in the histories of economic thought as the background for an exploration of some historiographical issues in the history of economic thought.

The study describes the contributions of the members of the German historical schools from a variety of different viewpoints and attitudes toward the history of economic thought.

One conclusion is that several of the things most of the economists of the German historical schools desired are now part of mainstream economics. These include an enlarged scope of economics, changes in the role of the state in economic life, attention to the relationships of law and economics and recognition of the importance of history. Another conclusion is that several historiographical and methodological problems important for the history of economic thought need further study.

The study helps to explain and understand some historiographical aspects of the history of economic thought. It examines practices, principles, theories, methodology and forms of presentation of scholarly historical research on one subject in the history of economic thought.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

The purpose of this paper is to stimulate historical thinking in dealing with problems of marketing thought, by explaining the advantages of studying the history of a discipline's ideas; examining what has been included in prior histories; and evaluating the completeness of coverage in Tadajewski and Jones' (2008) The History of Marketing Thought.

This paper presents a comparative analysis based upon prior histories of marketing thought.

For teaching, with modest supplementation, The History of Marketing Thought provides a full appreciation of the intellectual heritage of marketing. For research purposes, The History of Marketing Thought does reasonably well in organizing concepts and theories into schools of marketing thought but less well in showing how these ideas can be organized across the readings to produce new knowledge.

There were some important omissions in the collection. Marketing's leading thinker was largely neglected and many significant problems for marketing thought are overlooked. There was no discussion of methodological issues and minimal editorial commentary connected the parts and sections to provide a research thrust to the work. Consequently, it is recommended that another volume or two be added to this set.

The educational value of this work is in transmitting the knowledge base of the discipline from one generation of marketing scholars to the next. It is only after the ideas developed by earlier marketing thinkers are fully understood that innovative theories can be constructed and new knowledge created.

The purpose of this paper is to be more than a book review essay on the work by Tadajewski and Jones, The History of Marketing Thought. It reviews the literature on marketing history and thought, and includes suggestions for additional research on that topic.

The research relies heavily on previously published articles and on databank searches.

A more complete time line of the history of marketing thought is presented. It is also shown that more biographical historical research is needed, especially on those pioneer practitioners of marketing whose legacy has influenced marketing thought and practice.

Knowing more about the history of marketing thought will prove useful both to academics and to practitioners. Biographies are also practical because we learn more about both the scholars and the times that have transformed this discipline.

The essay offers a brief but succinct summary of the history of marketing thought over millennia while at the same time reviewing a readings book on the topic.

Describes how the opinions about Wilhelm Roscher and his work developed during the century following his death in the USA. Possible reasons for the changes are explored. Special attention is given to the more favourable reception of Roscher in the USA as opposed to the UK. A central point is that his influence and importance in the USA changed as time passed and with the development of professional economics. Suggests new reading of Cunningham′s essay. Attention is drawn to some of Roscher′s works in English that have been neglected. Some problems of periodization in the history of economic thought are investigated. Several conventional judgements are challenged and possibilities for further research suggested.

This paper is an attempt to sketch the influence of the German Historical School on the development of Russian economic thought at the boundary of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and, particularly, on the forming of its socio‐ethical trend with an alternative approach in solving the “social question”.

The paper is designed as a brief outlook of the history of the Russian economic thought at the pre‐revolutionary time and of the main theoretical debates on the paths of Russia's economic development.

It can be seen that at the turn of the century a new socio‐ethical trend of political economy in the Russian economic science was being shaped under the influence of the German Historical School's ideas and their creative re‐evaluation. Representatives of this trend – Bulgakov, Miklashevsky, Tugan‐Baranovsky and others – addressed the problems of “social ideal”, “social policy” and ethical principle in political economy. They were promoting the social reforms as the path to social compromise.

The reconstructuring of Russia's political and economic system in the last decade of the twentieth century and transition to a market‐oriented economy gave rise to a modern wave of debates over the fundamentals of economic theory. The present paper focuses on the importance of the humanistic approach in the theory of social economy that involves historical, philosophical, legal and others points of view on the economic life of society.

This study aims to examine the quality of the extant supply chain management (SCM) research which has utilized a grounded theory (GT) approach. The purpose of this research is to better understand the current state of the field, by introducing and highlighting the distinctions between the Glaserian and Straussian schools of thought and examining the extent to which existing SCM research has either complied with or diverged from the six dimensions which distinguish the two schools of thought. By doing so, it aims to provide guidelines to both reviewers and researchers who might use GT in future studies, with the goal of improving the validity and rigor of GT research.

The method underlying this paper followed the steps of a systematic literature review process. GT works within leading SCM journals were examined to determine the extent to which they complied with the methodological tenets of GT.

The systematic literature review shows that, while the use of GT in the field of SCM appears to be increasing over time, over half of the investigated studies deviate from the chosen school of thought by not adhering to the six dimensions distinct to Glaser's or Strauss's approach to GT.

This study calls for researchers to revisit the methodological roots of GT in order to improve the validity of such studies and ultimately the acceptance of the GT methodology by the broader community of SCM researchers. Transparency must be increased with regard to the chosen school of thought and the research process itself. GT is an appropriate methodology for investigating behavioral and social aspects of organizations and inter‐organizational relationships, and thus should be utilized more frequently in future SCM research.

The paper aids researchers in understanding the methodological tenets of grounded theory and the divergence of schools of thought within this methodology.