Search results

Hazel Kyrk’s contribution is the most advanced formulation of the economics of consumption as a social phenomenon, an approach to the analysis of consumption that, originated from Veblen’s theory, was developed in the US in the early 20th century. This approach was part of a wider stream of empirical analyses of consumption expenditure that had begun more than a century earlier.

Along with elements that can be traced back to the neoclassical tradition, in Keynes’ analysis of consumption, we find original elements. The dependence of consumption expenditure on the level of income, which is essential for asserting the principle of effective demand, can also be found in a long tradition of empirical studies. In qualifying this relationship, Keynes uses theoretical elements echoing key insights of the economics of consumption as a social phenomenon. There is no documentary evidence that Kyrk or the economics of the social relevance of consumption came to Keynes’ attention. It is possible, however, to develop reasonable speculative considerations to argue a link between Keynes’ elaboration and both the empirical literature on the determinants of consumption and the economics of consumption as a social phenomenon.

If a reason is sought for not neglecting Cazenove, we need look no further than to his views on demand, consumption, saving and gluts, and to his criticisms of what he called ‘Say's principle’ and ‘Say's new theory’.

The memorial is an account of Smith's personality and work by a former and favored student. It is a sustained personal reminiscence backed by the reminiscences of others who admired Smith together with an account of Smith's working practices and of his main texts. It is in this sense subjective as well as objective. It is not a full-scale biography, rather a biographical sketch and it is necessarily limited by its very proximity to the subject. The principal and other informants knew Smith and liked him. However, given Stewart's own profession, the work is more than this. It was written in the context of the consequences for Smith's reputation in the light of the French Revolution. Stewart is anxious, given the sensitivities concerning the destructive radicalism in France and in the context of the conservative reaction in Britain, to distance Smith's ideas on liberty and on policy from those ideas as they were being expressed in revolutionary France. In this way, Stewart's biographical work is both an account of Smith's life and works and a politicized interpretation of his principle economic ideas.

It is by now a foregone conclusion that the Talmudic sages possessed a remarkable knowledge and understanding of highly sophisticated economic laws and practices. In fact, as far back as 1911, the eminent economist and scholar, Werner Sombart, had expressed his deep admiration for their high degree of economic sophistication and keen insight when he wrote:

The reader of Alfred Marshall writings confronts a variety of businessmen portraits that coexist along his epoch. The purpose of this paper is to describe Marshall's understanding of the capitalist‐owner concept, the way in which access to capital determined the emerging role played by entrepreneurs, the differences between entrepreneurs and managers in order to expose the characteristics that defined managerial activities.

A chronological review of Marshall writings revealed that the evolution of his ideas about entrepreneurship is associated to the role played by businessmen as capital owner, risk bearer, innovator, or administrator.

Marshall's analysis is useful to explain: the problem that arises in the firm when property (capital owner) and control (manager) are separated (the principal‐agent relationship); why directors of today's firms are required to embody qualities as administrators (passive superintendents) and innovators (active entrepreneurs); and how to sort out the conflict that occurs in many family firms when the founder (entrepreneur) is unable to cope with the managerial complexities associated to growth (the Marshallian “cycle life” of business and entrepreneurs).

Schumpeter is widely regarded in the economic literature as the one that developed the modern vision of businessmen as a risk bearer. We contend that this vision was already described by Marshall, as well as the distinction between the innovator (entrepreneur) and the orderly administrator of business (manager).