文献一覧: 03880036 (ISSN) - Ceek.jp Altmetrics

1 0 0 0 OA アダム•スミスの蔵書 (平成一一年六月一五日提出)

著者: 水田洋
出版者: 日本学士院
雑誌: 日本學士院紀要 (ISSN:03880036)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.55, no.1, pp.1-20, 2000 (Released:2007-06-22)
被引用文献数: 16

The following is based on my introduction to a catalogue of Adam Smith's library forthcoming from the Oxford Universety Press, with some additions and rearrangement for Japanese audience. An abridged version was read before the meeting of the first section (humanities and social sciences) of the Japan Academy on 15th June 1999.

2013-10-20 16:28:57
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA ミルはソーントンに如何に答えるべきであったか (平成一四年一月一五日提出)

著者: 根岸隆
出版者: 日本学士院
雑誌: 日本學士院紀要 (ISSN:03880036)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.57, no.1, pp.17-40, 2002 (Released:2007-06-22)
参考文献数: 46
被引用文献数: 1

In Negishi (1986), I developed my view on the so-called Mill's recantation of the wages fund doctrine, the short-run theory of wages in the classical school of the economics. According to a survey article on the recent John Stuart Mill interpretations, “a further twist to the debate has been given by Negishi (1986). He reminds us that Mill, in the 1871 edition of the Principles, retracted some of his earlier enthusiasm for Thornton. There he in effect rejected the idea that disequilibrium trades in any way undermine the importance of the principle of the equality of supply and demand, and cautioned that it was too early to adduce any firm conclusions from the discussion engendered by Thornton's book”(De Marchi, 1988).I have three purposes in this present article. The first one is to offer a Japanese version of Negishi (1986), which I think it worthwhile, since there are still no Japanese translation available of the related literature referred and quoted there, i. e., Thornton (1869), Mill (1869) and Thornton (1870). Secondly, I wish to record the appearance of some related literature published in 1990's, like Ekelund (1997), Forget (1991), Fukagai (1995), Mawatari (1997), Mirowsky (1990), Negishi (1998), Vint (1994), and White (1994). Particularly, I wish to make some detailed rejoinders to comments given by Mawatari (1997).The final one is to consider, from the point of view of the modern economic theory (Arrow and Hahn (1971), pp. 324-346, and Negishi (1972), pp. 207-227), how Mill should have replied to Thornton, who asked the significance of a small amount of trade at equilibrium prices, which are arrived after a great bulk of goods were already sold at disequilibrium prices (Thornton, 1869, pp. 53-54; 1870, p. 65). As is easily seen at a glance at Figures 6, 7 and 8 in the text of the present article, i. e., those of box diagram and of utility frontier, the importance of the final small amount of trade at equilibrium prices is that the Pareto optimality is assured.

2013-10-20 16:27:05
1 + 0 Twitter

1 0 0 0 OA コモン•センス海をわたる (平成一六年六月一五日提出)

著者: 水田洋
出版者: 日本学士院
雑誌: 日本學士院紀要 (ISSN:03880036)
巻号頁・発行日: vol.59, no.2, pp.87-105, 2005 (Released:2007-06-22)

When Thomas Paine wrote a pamphlet in Philadelphia to justify and encourage the revolutionary war, it was entitled Common Sense by Benjamin Rush, a Continental Congressman who had studied medicine in Edinburgh under Willam Cullen. Since Cullen was quite familier with the literati of the Scottish Enlightenment including such pioneers of the common sense school of philosophy as Lord Kames, Thomas Reid, and Dugald Stewart, their vocabulary might have been popular among medical students. Thus it is almost certain that Rush took the words common sense from the Scottish Enlightenment to give it to Paine's pamphlet. However, by this trans-Atlantic transfer the word changed its meaning from conservative to radical. Needless to say Paine's common sense was that of the American common peope longing for independence whereas in the Scottish origin it was the common sense of those men of taste who were vehemently attacking the revolting colonies.Although it is an open question how clearly Rush was conscious of the total change of the meaning of the words, it might have been that he had at least a vague idea of the change before he met Paine. He wrote that he introduced Paine to the revolutionary cause to which he had joined earlier. He had been a regular member of Catharine Macaulay's salon in London. In any case, he later clearly denied the universal validity of common sense. He critisized Cullen's Greco-worship in medicine and even the personal worship towards Cullen himself. Thus Rush changed his attitude towards common sense twice, that is say, first as a revolutionary and secondly as an empirical scientist in medicine. He was a surgeon in the revolutionary war, and a medical practitioner and professor after the war. True he was a empirical scientist he has never doubted Christianity.