著者
小林 大州介
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.62, no.2, pp.1-25, 2020 (Released:2021-08-27)

In this paper, the author examines the contents of lectures given by A. C. Haddon, E. Westermarck, and Sydney Webb that Schumpeter attended at the London School of Eco-nomics (LSE) in 1907. This paper uses as references the syllabus of the LSE at that time and written works by the lecturers. Most research on the sources of Schumpeterʼs ideas on economic development and socioeconomics has been conducted based on discussions of Marxist economic thought, the German historical school, and American economists. Little attention has been accorded to the LSE lectures attended by Schumpeter. Consequently, essential parts of Schumpeterʼs history of economic thought have been ignored. This paper addresses that deficit. It has been established that Schumpeter attended lectures at the LSE on ethnology and sociology given by, respectively, Haddon and Westermarck. However, Schumpeter not-ed in a footnote in his posthumous History of Economic Analysis that he also attended Webbʼs lectures on “methods of social investigation.” The present author has previously demonstrated that the LSE lectures delivered by Haddon and Westermarck may have enabled Schumpeter to overcome outmoded ideas of “evolutionism” (which assumed autonomous development and unilineal developmental stages derived from the Enlightenment) and thoughts of “natural law.” Close examination of the lectures delivered at the LSE support the authorʼs previous hypothesis. Further, that examination reveals that Webbʼs lectures delivered in October 1907 could have exerted a defining impact on Schumpeterʼs thoughts on economics. For example, in Webbʼs lecture plans, such items as “The great man as a ferment” and “Possibility of predicting effects of a given social environment on average humans in the immediate future” can be found. Those lectures at the LSE include many key points related to Schumpeterʼs basic as-sumptions about dynamics and economic development. JEL classification numbers: B25, B31, Z13.
著者
原谷 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.122-124, 2015
著者
松永 友有
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.62, no.1, pp.26-50, 2020 (Released:2020-10-16)

John Maynard Keynes is known to have frequently changed his opinion on free trade and protection. There have been two contrasting interpretations of Keynes’s thought on the external economic policy, with one considering him essentially a free trader and the other finding him a protectionist. This article elucidates an original coherent explanation for Keynes’s ambiguous thinking on Britain’s external economic policy by observing the contradictory coexistence of economic nationalism and pacifist free-trade ideology among the New Liberals (left-leaning Liberals), of whom he was one. Since the 19th century, Britain had a peculiar political tradition in that the proposal of a protectionist policy almost entirely came from the political right, whereas the political left monolithically supported unconditional free trade under the influence of Richard Cobden’s idealistic internationalism. New Liberals, such as J.A. Hobson and Keynes, were sympathetic to the vision of a balanced national economy in which the manufacturing, rather than the financial sector, played a central role. In this sense, New Liberals had much in common with the historical economists, such as William Cunningham and William Ashley, who supported the Conservative Party’s protectionist campaign. Both Hobson’s theory of underconsumption and Keynes’s theory of effective demand emphasized the importance of domestic, rather than foreign markets. This meant that the New Liberals’ economic thinking was essentially more congruent with a protectionist policy to safeguard domestic manufacturing industries than free trade. Nevertheless, the New Liberals found it extremely difficult to support a protectionist policy because of protectionism’s strong association with right-wing politics in Britain and its incommensurability with their belief in a pacifist free-trade ideology. This dilemma formed the backdrop of Keynes’s allegedly inconsistent attitudes on the external economic policy of his time. JEL classification numbers: B10, B20, B27.