著者

御崎 加代子

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.48, no.1, pp.139-142, 2006-06-30 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

Michele Cangiani

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.48, no.1, pp.1-15, 2006-06-30 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

27

被引用文献数

1

---

Polanyi's wide-range comparative outlook consists in considering any given social system as the result of historical evolution and as a whole. The economy appears then as a process, specifically instituted within each social system. These methodological assumptions are in contrast with those of economics, to the extent that the latter embrace both individualism and ahistorical generalizations, i. e. a non-institutional characterisation of economic activity.The analysis of the “market system” as an “economically” instituted economy, and of the “market society” as a society in which the economic system becomes differentiated, autonomous and dominant, enables Polanyi to explain the “economistic fallacy” with reference to its real basis. Thus, the generalization of such categories as “rational choice” and “scarcity” reveals as fallacious, to the extent that it discards their institutional peculiarity; moreover, an authentically general, a “substantive” concept of “economy” is needed. Polanyi opposes it to the “formal” concept, and interprets, for instance, Carl Menger's long engagement in revising his Grundsätze as a tentative of distinguishing a more general meaning from the “economizing” meaning of “economic.”The article carries on Polanyi's suggestions about the motives and results of Menger's revision of his book of 1871. The problem of situating both Menger's work and Polanyi's interpretation within the history of economics is also dealt with, with particular reference to the inter-war theoretical and methodological opposition between institutional and conventional-neoclassical tendencies.

著者

橋本 努

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.56, no.2, pp.148-149, 2015

著者

下平 裕之

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.61, no.1, pp.104-123, 2019

被引用文献数

2

著者

鍋島 直樹

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.56, no.2, pp.94-112, 2015-01

著者

鍋島 直樹

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.56, no.2, pp.94-112, 2015

著者

寺尾 範野

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.2, pp.45-61, 2013

被引用文献数

1

---

This paper examines British new liberal thinker L.T. Hobhouseʼs (1864―1929) views on social reform with a particular focus on the connection between his early economic thought on volun-tary organizations and his later ethical theory of distributive justice, and demonstrates that these aspects of his thought were theoretically com-plementary, together composing Hobhouseʼs life-long pursuit of the moralization of capital-ism. In the 1890s, Hobhouse already shared with contemporaneous new liberals several moralistic concerns over the issue of social reform. They all (1) thought of the development of morality as the fundamental aim of social reform and (2) emphasized the stateʼs duty to provide individu-als with the legal conditions necessary for moral development. Early in his career, Hobhouse fo-cused on the first point, identifying trade unions and co-operative societies as effective agencies for instilling in workers the values of fellowship and mutual aid. Hobhouse developed his ideas on state inter-ference after the 1910s, particularly from the perspective of distributive justice. Individuals were considered to have reciprocal rights and duties in relation to others and the state: they were seen as having the right to demand legal, material and social conditions sufficient for de-veloping their moral personalities and the duty to undertake their own social functions. A just distribution ensured by the state was seen as be-ing one that was capable of maintaining the per-formance of such functions. Hobhouse saw the roles of intermediate or-ganizations and the state as complementary, thus developing new liberal thought on social reform from a pluralistic-cum-moralistic perspective. To what extent this "ethical welfare pluralism" was common at the turn of the century would be a question worth examining in the historical study of the British welfare state.JEL classification numbers: B 19, B 31, I 31.

著者

上宮 智之

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.49, no.1, pp.69-85, 2007-06-30

---

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics (1881) has been influenced by various intellectual contemporaries through the 'Sidgwick-Barratt Controversy,' which concerned not only the adoption of physical methods to ethics but also the question of what is the first principle of the conduct. In this controversy, Barratt admitted the physical methods of ethics, but Sidgwick rejected them; and also, while Sidgwick arrived at the 'Dualism of Practical Reason,' the conflict between egoism and utilitarianism, Barratt insisted the former was the only principle. Edgeworth admitted the physical methods of ethics under the influence of Barratt beginning with the publication of New and Old Methods of Ethics (1877), at least up to Mathematical Psychics; which is clear from his adoption of the 'Fechner's Law' to measure the quantity of pleasure. In Mathematical Psychics, through the analysis of the contract between egoistic agents, Edgeworth attempted to prove the limits of adopting egoism and its need of utilitarianism as the solution to the 'Dualism of Practical Reason'; this endeavor is opposite to Sidgwick as well as Barratt, and it cannot be completed without reference to Jevons' economics. Though Edgeworth justified the utilitarianism, he criticized 'equality' tacitly implied in it. Edgeworth believed that the capacity for pleasure/work is roughly different among the different classes (people who generally tend to inherit the superior capacities belong to the higher), and also that those capable of pleasure should have more means and more pleasure. According to such ideas, unequal distribution is admitted as the 'distributive justice' for the greatest happiness of the society. Edgeworth called his utilitarianism 'exact Utilitarianism,' and it was critical not only of Benthamism but also Sidgwick who accepted Bentham's formula. Thus, Edgeworth's Mathematical Psychics is not only the economic but also ethical work influenced especially by the 'Sidgwick-Barratt Controversy.'

著者

池田 毅

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.51, no.1, pp.117-118, 2009-07-25

著者

鈴木 康治

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.2, pp.83-99, 2011-01-31

---

Defoe definitely agrees that luxury is a vice, though he also recognizes that luxury as a con- sumptive action entails economic benefits for the political society. Furthermore, he realizes that the conspicuousness of riches in consumptive actions can have morally restraining effects on the common people. The central theme of this article is to distinguish Defoe's implications for the consumption theory from his discourses on luxury. For this purpose, it is expedient to focus on Defoe's considerable regards for the English gentry, because it can clarify his luxury discourse in the social context wherein luxury is to be clearly comprehended as a consumptive action. When logically integrated with the gentry discourse, the luxury discourse represents the consumption theory in eighteenth-century England. Moreover, it is notable that morality is included in economic activities in Defoe's luxury discourse. Defoe struggles to find a cohesive logic in his social theory closely relevant with the structural change of his time. In this contemporary dynamics, it is the gentry comprising virtuous individuals with riches and intelligence that he expects to find as the leading entity governing the new hierarchical order to be settled with the quality and quantity of their consumptive actions. Thus, it is safe to say that Defoe's theory of consumption correctly grasps the social order newly established in eighteenth-century England.

著者

田中 拓道

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.20-34, 2010-07-26

---

The purpose of this article is to examine the changes in the role played by the government in the market according to the theories of the French political economy from the 1780s to the 1830s. These theories are generally regarded as the precursors of "economics." This article reveals that these theories attempt to use the market politically aiming to develop the people's "well-being" or "happiness," and to redefine the government's role in the market. At the beginning of nineteenth century, J. B. Say and C. Dunoyer emphasized the political significance of a free industrial market. According to them, it enables the people's "moeurs" to be independent and self-disciplined, so as to establish a post-revolutionary political order. Some contemporary political economists such as J. Droz and M. T. Duchatel doubted the compatibility between the accumulation of wealth and the development of "happiness" of the people. They asserted the need for elementary education as it leads to the redistribution of "new wealth." Moreover, social economists from the 1830s, such as A. de Villeneuve-Bargemont and E. Buret, emphatically discussed the perverse effect of industrialization, stating that the concentration of capital inevitably caused the pauperization of most of the people. They believed that the new role of the government should be the "moralization" of the poor through the organization of intermediate groups such as religious associations, saving associations, charity groups, mutual societies, and patriarchal families.

著者

田中 敏弘

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.49, no.1, pp.161-163, 2007-06-30