著者

佐藤 光宣

出版者

帝京大学短期大学

雑誌

帝京大学短期大学紀要 = Bulletin of Teikyo University Junior College (ISSN:13444212)

巻号頁・発行日

no.37, pp.256-125, 2017

著者

佐藤 光宣

出版者

日本大学

雑誌

日本大学経済学部経済科学研究所紀要 (ISSN:03859983)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.7, pp.209-235, 1983-03-20

---

In this paper I have attempted in a limited way to assess the economic thought of Thorstein Veblen, the founder of the institutional school of economics. In doing this I have inquired into Veblen's criticisms of the economics of John Bates Clark who originated the theory of marginal utility economics in the United States of America. Despite the fact that the economics of both Veblen and Clark were established in the monopolistic stage of American capitalism, they are in decided conflict. This should ultimately be explained in terms of the opposed standpoints of Newtonianism and Darwinism from this viewpoint I am particularly interested in how this conflict has been carried over into economic theory. Firstly, Veblen disputed the economic assumptions held since the publication of Clark's main work, The Distribution of Wealth (1899), to the effect that patterns appeared to have been perfected. These assumptions were the hedonistic view of human nature, the free competition system as a postulate a priori, and the theory of social organism which has an essentially atomistic character. As such they are basically in common with those of the classical school, and from the standpoint of pragmatism and Darwinism, Veblen felt duty-bound to criticise them. Secondly, according to Veblen, Clark's static state had the normative character of natural law and that therefore a dynamic state founded on a static state possessed a static character. Clark claimed, moreover, that changes in the dynamic state were governed by static laws which were the real laws. In this Veblen discerned an animistic teleological preconception. Accordingly, Clark's dynamic state has no relation to Veblen's "theory of movement." The latter's theoretical theme is the process of aimless cumulative change in institutions. Furthermore, Veblen disputed Clark's theory of capital. So I studied Veblen's theory of capital as developed in The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) and found it to be at variance with that of Clark. In Veblen's view, in a society of a pecuniary culture, that is to say in a capitalistic society, there is a pecuniary concept, and this cannot be automatically defined in material terms in the way Clark does. However, Clark essentially used the approach of the classical school and did not include intangible assets in his definition of capital. Intangible assets, or "good-will," are fundamental to the prospective earnings capacity of the enterise and are consequently concerned with capitalization. Therefore Clark could not discuss overcapitalization in detail and moreover was not capable of theoretically forecasting the Great Depression which started in 1929. On the other hand, Veblen, by applying his principle of cumulative causation, explained the phenomena of capitalization and predicted economic trends. Finally, Veblen criticized Clark's "natural" theory of distribution. This final productivity theory is based on Newtonian principles according to which the theory of distribution is characterized by a concept of capital with no scope for change, the immutability of the institution of private property and a hedonistic view of human nature. From a Darwinistic point of view, therefore, Veblen could not accept these premises and so was obliged to criticize the distribution theory itself. Furthermore, a distribution theory which had to be "natural" even permitted monopolistic behavior by enterprises. In this way Veblen investigated the residue of natural law in Clark's economics and the influence of Newtonianism and its limitations by contrasting them with his own evolutionary economics.