著者

佐藤 空

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.58, no.1, pp.159-160, 2016 (Released:2019-11-29)

著者

佐藤 方宣

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.58, no.1, pp.161-162, 2016 (Released:2019-11-29)

著者

佐藤 滋正

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.2, pp.62-71, 2013 (Released:2019-08-22)

---

Abstract: This paper is an outline of studies on the political economist David Ricardo in Japan after World War II. Japanese studies on Ricardo have followed the Japanese tradi-tional learning style of thoroughly reading the original texts, and recent research has broadened to include Ricardoʼs contemporaries. Additionally, and particularly since the foundation of the Ricardo Society in Japan in 2000, researchers have endeavored to send their information to other countries. In the first section of this paper, I survey the articles about Ricardo, and in the second section, I trace the historical progress of Japanese studies. I divide their approximately 70 years of Japanese research into three periods: the postwar period to the 1960s, the 1970s to the 1980s, and the 1990s to today. The final section contains perspectives on Japanese studies on Ricardo. JEL classification numbers: A 12, B 12, B 31.

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)

著者

佐藤 方宣

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.54, no.1, pp.116-117, 2012 (Released:2019-10-31)

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)

著者

佐藤 方宣

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.49, no.1, pp.178-179, 2007-06-30 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 方宣

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.45, no.45, pp.40-54, 2004 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

40

---

In the late 1910s, John Maurice Clark insisted that traditional economics (value economics and price economics) was becoming irrelevant to the problems of “an era of social readjustment, ” advocating the need for another type of economic theory which he called “social economics.” This conception of social economics had a place in the basis of his economic thought, and core ideas of his works in the interwar periods, such as Studies in the Economic of Overhead Cost (1923) or Social Control of Business (1926), were corollaries of the fundamentals of his social economics.In this paper, we scrutinize the original plan of John Maurice Clark's social economics logically and historically, and clarify its nature and relevant historical contexts, especially its relationship with the institutionalism movements and the implication of Clark's discussions with Anderson, Jr. on the meaning of social value in economic theory.First, we consider why Clark advocated that social economics must become a centerpiece of economics. This was derived from his relative view of the nature of economic theory, which, he thought, had to reflect dynamic social and economic changes. This is why price economics which was based on static premises and whose materials were selected with reference to a logical “closed system” were irrelevant to problems in an era of reconstruction after the World War I. He claimed that it must become a subordinate part of economics.Secondly, we examine the framework of Clark's social economics which he described as “non-Euclidean.” Clarifying the premises of traditional economics, he presented relevant premises of social economics, such as a concept of wealth as “inappropriables, ” a need for qualitative standards of economic activity, a universal nature of overhead cost, a problem of mechanization, and so on. He proposed that these aspects of social economics reflected the context of that time, such as an appearance of Big Business Systems, and the experience of the World War I.Finally, we examine the backgrounds of Clark's advocacy of social economics, placing it in the context of the American economic thought of the time. We clarified its connection with the emergence of institutionalism movements led by Hamilton and other young economists, and with the controversy regarding the concept of social value. On the one hand, Hamilton's critical judgment for traditional economics and claim for institutional economics took the same approach as Clark's social economics. Therefore they had become representatives of institutionalists in the interwar period. On the other hand, by examining Clark's discussions with Anderson Jr., we recognize that they shared same context of the discussion of social value, started from John Bates Clark's Philosophy of Wealth (1885). This seems to be one of the main sources of J. M. Clark's emphasis on the need for a social value standard which implied a valuation not based on actual market prices.

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.

著者

佐藤 方宣

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.42, no.42, pp.59-70, 2002 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

48

---

In the “standard” history of economics, Knight was positioned as an “orthodox” economist who contributed to the development of neo-classical economics, and as “an ideological opponent of institutional economics.” Indeed, Knight took a critical attitude to the attack on “Traditional Economics” by American institutional economists, especially in the 1920s. However, in recent years, the “heterodox” elements and affinities with institutionalists of his work have been emphasized by certain studies. Moreover, several times he called himself an “institutionalist.” The question we have to ask is why (and how) Frank Knight, who has institutionalist elements, criticized his contemporary American institutionalists. The purpose of this paper is to answer this question by examining his articles in the context of the American economic thought of his day.Knight agreed with most of his contemporary institutional economists regarding the necessity for a “reconsideration” of Traditional Economics. However, he criticized the institutionalist criticism of Traditional Economics as being “irrelevant, ” because, he said, they didn't understand the significance of deductive theory. Knight recognized the limitations of deductive theory; nevertheless, he emphasized its meaning in economics. Knight although criticized the institutionalists regarding their attempts to make economics more “scientific” like other natural sciences. He argued that this claim stood on the misunderstanding of the difference between natural science and social science. Knight emphasized that social science addresses many elements which are irrelevant in natural science. Knight argued that economics is not only a science but also an art. In addition, he positioned institutional economics positively as a “philosophy of history, ” which treats the long-term changes in the datum of deductive and applied economics as the object of consideration.It is important to note that clarifying such a methodological position as Knight's may help us to understand why his main themes shifted from economics, in the narrow sense, to the historical and philosophical consideration of social economic systems. Since the mid-1930s, this shift has reflected the historical changes of western civilization after the emergence of Fascism and the New Deal, which comprised the long-term changes in the datum of economics. His discreet attitude, which placed both deductive economics and institutional economics in their proper positions, isolated him from both the mainstream institutionalists and the neoclassicists. However, his methodological position itself was consistent throughout his academic life. His economics, in the narrow sense, and the institutional economics defined by Knight, held a common value in his economic thought.

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.41, no.41, pp.107-108, 2002 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 方宣

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.39, no.39, pp.197-199, 2001 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 隆三

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.38, no.38, pp.204-205, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 有史 中村 廣治

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.35, no.35, pp.159-161, 1997 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 慎太郎 川俣 恵利華 川端 真由美 半澤 真喜子 川俣 幸一

出版者

特定非営利活動法人 日本栄養改善学会

雑誌

栄養学雑誌 (ISSN:00215147)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.78, no.6, pp.264-271, 2020-12-01 (Released:2021-01-27)

参考文献数

36

---

【目的】高齢者筋力向上トレーニング(以下,高齢者筋トレ)後に,たんぱく質を摂取させる取り組みは広く行われているが,効果が一律とならないことは知られている。今回我々は,軟化した食材を用いた栄養介入が高齢者筋トレの効果を高めるのか検証した。【方法】仙台市在住の一般高齢者15名(平均76.3歳)を無作為に二群に分け,両群に3ヶ月間の介護予防運動教室を実施し,介入前後の数値を比較した。各回の教室の後半に,一方の群には軟化した豚肉 50 gを,もう他方の群には普通のボイル豚肉 50 gを,すみやかに摂取させた。【結果】両群ともに3ヶ月の運動教室を経験しているため介入前後で有意な改善を示した運動機能値が存在した。そこで主成分分析により総合数値を求め,介入前後の結果を比較した。その結果,第1主成分「運動機能」得点において軟化豚肉群では有意な増加が見られた。このような傾向は普通豚肉群では確認されなかった。【結論】今回の我々の結果は,高齢者筋トレ運動後に吸収性を良くした食材をすみやかに食べることが,筋トレ効果の更なる増強を導く可能性を示唆した。

著者

佐藤 隆三

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.33, no.33, pp.177, 1995 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

松浦 保 佐藤 茂行

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.32, no.32, pp.167-168, 1994 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 有史

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.31, no.31, pp.143-144, 1993 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 隆三

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.29, no.29, pp.43, 1991 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

佐藤 滋正

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.28, no.28, pp.2-10, 1990 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

18