文献一覧: 佐藤有史 (著者)

2 0 0 0 OA 海外アダム・スミス研究の動向人文諸科学におけるその興隆と「アダム・スミス問題」の復活を中心に

著者: 大島幸治佐藤有史
出版者: 経済学史学会
雑誌: 経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.52, no.1, pp.67-83, 2010 (Released:2019-08-20)

1 0 0 0 OA More Ambitious than Might Be Expected:

著者: 佐藤有史
出版者: The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought
雑誌: 経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.54, no.1, pp.102-105, 2012 (Released:2019-08-22)

2021-01-28 11:24:00
1 はてなブックマーク

1 0 0 0 OA 中村廣治『リカードウ評伝――生涯・学説・活動』(昭和堂,2009年)をめぐって

著者: 千賀重義佐藤有史
出版者: 経済学史学会
雑誌: 経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.52, no.1, pp.88-94, 2010 (Released:2019-08-20)

2021-01-28 10:00:00
1 はてなブックマーク

1 0 0 0 OA 古典派貨幣理論

著者: 佐藤有史
出版者: The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought
雑誌: 経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.44, no.44, pp.98-113, 2003 (Released:2010-08-05)
参考文献数: 76

Since late 1970's there has emerged a variety of ‘new’ interpretations of classical monetary theory, shedding new light on classical economists pace ‘old’ interpretations. They have indeed transformed our understanding of classical theory. Though there have already been several efforts to outline these ‘new’ interpretations: e. g., those of J. Niehans, M. C. Marcuzzo, A. Rosselli, N. T. Skaggs, and D. Glasner, they are far from monolithic, and indeed there are significant differences among their viewpoints. Unfortunately there has been no effort to comprehend ‘new’ interpretations, though several common grounds have been put forward to revise our understanding of classical theory as opposed to ‘old’ interpretations. It is time to synthesize and appraise the major findings of ‘new’ interpretations.In this review article I propose my own syntheses of ‘new’ interpretations as follows: (a) the theoretical framework of classical monetary theory was quite different from that of the quantity theory of money, while ‘old’ interpretations have often confused them, (b) classical economists had in fact developed a remarkable theory of monetary policy, while ‘old’ interpretations have failed to appreciate it since they have insisted in looking at classics through the ‘rules versus discretion’ lens, and (c) instead, the ‘central banking versus free banking’ controversy should be understood as one of the most crucial themes in appreciating the way in which classical economists sought to develop their own theories of money and banking, while almost all ‘old’ interpretations have neglected this aspect.Almost all the ‘new’ interpretations, including my own, have shared a broad agreement regarding thesis (a), though there are some differences, for example, regarding their attitudes to the monetary approach to the balance of payments, and its applicability to Adam Smith and David Ricardo. As for (b) and (c), there are differences, to which the modern free banking school has contributed. On the one hand, the modern free banking school, by highlighting the classical theory of commodity money, praises the Smithian-banking school tradition in favor of their case for free banking. In so doing, they put both Henry Thornton and Ricardo in a rather unhappy position. On the other hand, in their perceptive treatments of Ricardo's theory of money and monetary policy, Marcuzzo and Rosselli, and A. Arnon detect a rupture between Smith and the ‘true classical monetary theory’ of Thornton and/or Ricardo. I emphasize a continuity in the development of the classical theory of central banking from Smith to Ricardo via Thornton in that Smith played an important role in making the 1765 Act, banning small notes below f5 and optional clauses, which facilitated the Bank of England in his day to behave in the manner of a central bank. Moreover, it is Ricardo's plans both for ‘bullion payments’ and for the establishment of a national bank, a remarkable achievement of the classical theory of monetary policy, that makes the ‘old’ interpretations based on the ‘rules versus discretion’ distinction obsolete. I argue that there existed quite a coherent classical central banking tradition based on their insights into the fractional reserve banking system under the gold standard, rather than an alleged rupture between Smith and Thornton-Ricardo. I also emphasize that advocates for free banking in the classical era were in fact no match for the Smith-Thornton-Ricardo tradition.