著者

森 直人

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.58, no.2, pp.48-50, 2017 (Released:2019-11-30)

著者

山田 鋭夫 Robert Chapeskie

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.58, no.2, pp.1-23, 2017 (Released:2019-08-31)

被引用文献数

3

---

Introduction by Toshio Yamada This text was originally a chapter in Yoshihiko Uchidaʼs (1913-1989) first book, The Birth of Economic Science (hereafter referred to as “Birth”), Tokyo: Mirai-sha Publishers, 1953, and was later included in Collected Works of Yoshi-hiko Uchida, vol. 1, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, Publishers, 1989. Birth was pub-lished eight years after Japanʼs defeat in World War II, in the era of chaos and hope that followed this conflict. It has been widely read by generations of social scientists, and is now considered one of the greatest masterpieces in the study of Adam Smith in Japan. Following its somewhat lengthy “Introduction,” Uchidaʼs Birth is construct-ed in two parts: Part One, “The Birth of Economic Science: Wealth of Nations as a Critique of the Old Imperial System” and Part Two, “Analysis of the Sys-tem of Wealth of Nations.” In Part One, Uchida depicts the birth of economic science in Smith not as an extension of political economy after the mercantile system but rather as a critical response to the examination of civil society found in thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume and above all Jean-Jacques Rous-seau, thus bringing into sharp relief Adam Smith as a thinker who criticized mercantilist “modernization from above.” In Part Two, starting with an examina-tion of Smithʼs concept of civil society and theory of the division of labor, Uchi-da analyzes his theories of value, surplus value, and capital accumulation and reproduction by contrasting them with those of Karl Marx. For a more detailed outline of Birth, see Sakamoto (2017).

著者

近藤 真司

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.58, no.2, pp.24-27, 2017 (Released:2019-08-31)

著者

伊藤 誠一郎

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.58, no.1, pp.139-148, 2016 (Released:2019-08-31)

著者

池田 幸弘

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.58, no.1, pp.149-152, 2016 (Released:2019-08-31)

著者

中村 隆之

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.58, no.1, pp.155-156, 2016 (Released:2019-11-29)

著者

原 伸子

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.58, no.1, pp.1-20, 2016 (Released:2019-08-31)

被引用文献数

2

---

Abstract: This paper investigates the relationship between home economics and new household eco-nomics. In particular, I consider what is “new” in new household economics from the feminist economics perspective. Home economics was established in the 1920s and 1930s by Hazel Kyrk, Margaret Reid, and Elizabeth Hoyt, while new household economics was established in the 1960s by Jacob Mincer, Theodore Schultz, and Gary Becker. Before the 1960s, main-stream economics concentrated on production for the market. Later, the mainstream economi-cs of the family culminated in Beckerʼs new household economics. The family, within which unpaid labor is carried out mostly by women, again became an important topic in feminist economics in the 1990s. In this paper, I focus on the theoretical meaning of unpaid labor in these two Chicago schools, home economics and new household economics. I insist that new household economics is not “new” in terms of its approach and method. Rather, its novelty is in the domain of the application of standard microeconomics to the household. I firstly ex-plore the feminist economics perspective. Secondly, I discuss the theoretical meaning of the analysis of unpaid labor in home economics. Thirdly, I examine new household economics from the methodological point of view and policy implications. I then conclude by discussing the relationship between these two Chicago schools. JEL classification numbers: B 00, B41, B54.

著者

田中 秀夫 Chapeskie Robert

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.58, no.1, pp.69-116, 2016 (Released:2019-08-31)

---

Introduction by Hideo Tanaka The late professor Masaharu Tanaka (1925-2000), president of JSHET from 1985-86, edited The Comparative Study of Liberal Economic Thought, a book published in 1997 by The University of Nagoya Press. He wrote a long preface to it, and this English article is a translation of that essay. During his two years as a junior researcher under Michio Morishima at Kyoto University, Tanaka began his studies with Max Weberʼs Wissenschafts-lehre before moving on to the study of 18th century French social thought and later Marx, Lenin and Prehanov. His Doctoral Dissertation was on the History of Russian Economic Thought, including the Narodniks, Marxists, and other movements. He became a professor of economic theory after its publication in 1967. With the decline of socialism, the focus of the economics academy in Ja-pan gradually shifted from Marxist political economy to Anglo-American eco-nomics. Tanaka and his study group (his former students and other scholars) start-ed the “society for the study of methodology of social sciences” in 1980, and continued to hold monthly meetings until his death. As mentor of this society, Tanaka read various books concerning liberalism and other topics. He found Hayekʼs work important, and translated several of his essays in collaboration with his student Hideo Tanaka, publishing them as Market, Knowledge, and Liberty in 1986, a book that became a forerunner of the “Hayek boom” in Japan.

著者

小峯 敦

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.58, no.1, pp.120-138, 2016 (Released:2019-08-31)

---

A brief yet hopefully exhaustive sketch of recent studies on Keynes brings us four concluding remarks. First, thanks to professionalisation of the history of economic thought, the 14 academic journals (their abbreviations are shown be-low), at least, are ready to accept articles on historical and theoretical perspec-tives of Keynesʼs ideas. This directly leads to an increase in academic papers (in English) in quantity, and consequently, to better understandings of Keynes in quality. However, confining to narrow academic circles could also bring a fall of influential powers in the history of economic thought, despite of its role to bridge both among other disciplines one another and academia with ordinary people. Second, one of the most conspicuous characteristics of the research trends is to emphasise Keynesʼs multiple phases of international relations in practice and in theory. These cover not only the international monetary system but also corporative designs to balance both among national and international interests and among just, fair world and economic efficiency towards a peaceful world. Third, Keynesʼs ideas provoke current economists to study on recent fashionable themes such as on happiness, behavioural economics, neuroscience, and psycho-logical economics. Among them, the relation between agents on a micro level and economic phenomena on a macro level is the most difficult theme to solve. Nevertheless, Keynesʼs insight into the organic whole in macroeconomics can serve as a clue. Fourth, strict interpretations of original texts are necessary, sometimes by way of unpublished primary sources, to extract the relevant usage of economics. The history of economic thought serves this end. In the near fu-ture, historians of economics can even apply a new method, such as text-mining and handling big data, to this academic area. Judging from both the numerous articles mentioned above, and the Keynes Societies of Germany and Japan that were established in 2003 and in 2011 re-spectively, studies on Keynes seem to be more active than before. It is, neverthe-less, questionable whether the mere efforts by historians of economics could reach economic theorists along with general readers. I would like to end this review article by citing OʼDonnell (2011), which raises three fundamental questions: (i)Why is Keynes so different from ortho-dox economists?; (ii)Why is Keynes more difficult to understand than ortho-dox economists?; and (iii)Why is Keynes more appealing than orthodox econ-omists? Although OʼDonnell (2011, 10-11) answers these questions, it is now important to tackle the three knots, regardless of historians of economics, theo-retical economists, or even general readers. If I were asked to choose just two words to characterize Keynesʼs thought as a whole, they would be reason and humanity. (OʼDonnell 2011, 11)

著者

山崎 聡

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.57, no.2, pp.128-129, 2016 (Released:2019-11-26)

著者

八木 紀一郎

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.57, no.2, pp.122-123, 2016 (Released:2019-11-26)

著者

山崎 好裕

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.57, no.2, pp.124-125, 2016 (Released:2019-11-26)

著者

Editor The

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.57, no.1, pp.116, 2015 (Released:2019-08-27)

---

Corrigendum Corrigendum to Ryuzo Kuroki, 'Izumi Hishiyama and His Thoughts on the Circular Process and Pric-es of Production: The Journey of Economics from Quesnay to Sraffa,' published in Vol. 56-2 (January, 2015). The author found it imperative to correct an inaccu-rate expression in the above article after its publica-tion. Considering the misleading nature of the inac-curacy, the editorial board permits him to correct it as follows. The word 'Communist Party' in footnote 4 on page 3 of the issue must be corrected to 'Socialist Party.' The author acknowledges his indebtedness to Pro-fessor Luigi Pasinetti for this correction. The editor and author apologize for this error.

著者

岡田 元浩

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.57, no.2, pp.25-45, 2016 (Released:2019-08-30)

被引用文献数

2 2

---

Abstract: This study critically examines Léon Walras’s thoughts on labour in terms of pure, applied and social economics. In his theory of pure economics, Walras incorporated labour exchange into his general equilibrium system. He disregarded worker subjectivity towards labour performance and the resulting variability in the substance of labour. This neoclassicist bias emasculating the human traits of labour caused him to negate the distinctiveness of labour exchange and argue for its market determination. Thus, Walras assumed labour exchange to be ‘moral-free.’ In addition, Walras denied the influence of ‘moral’ factors in the scope of applied economics treating industries and contended that production activities, including the labour- management relationship, generally should be subject to free competition. However, Walras recognised a need for the state regulation of labour time. Nevertheless, he opposed the minimum wage system and denounced strikes for wage increases. Consequently, Walras adhered to his theory of labour exchange, incurring serious inconsistencies in his own arguments. Walras stressed that social economics dealing with distributional issues in light of justice represents ‘moral’ study. Under the profound influence of his father, Auguste Walras, Walras defended labour-based property rights and proposed land nationalisation. However, he justified the acquisition of capital profit as well as wages determined in a competitive market economy and denied a conflict between labour and capital. Hence, he substantially excluded labour exchange and the labour-capital relationship from the topics of social economics. In this manner, Walras advocated the market determination of labour exchange embracing its subsumption of production and distribution, and labour-management and labour-capital harmony. Therefore, Walras’s arguments in his trilogy allowed a moulding of the neoclassical principle of labour exchange. However, like his contemporary economists who advanced the same line of ideas, Walras enforced this step by playing down his own fair observations of the realities of industrial relations that were at variance with his theory. Thus, Walras’s trilogy reveals features of the formation of neoclassical thought on labour exchange. JEL classification numbers: B 13, J 01.

著者

植村 邦彦

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.57, no.2, pp.89-102, 2016 (Released:2019-08-30)

---

Translator's Introduction This article was first published in the Economic Review( July 1969, vol. 20, no. 3), issued by the Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University, and reissued in Kiyoaki Hirata, Civil Society and Socialism( Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten Publishers, 1969). The book was a bestseller at the time and ignited several controversies over Marx’s interpretation, especially among Japanese Marxists. In the article, Hirata emphasizes that Marx understood the distinction between individual and private property as well as that between civil and bourgeois society. Hirata’s originality lies in his definition of modern civil society as one in which individual property is established under the appearance of private property. He asserts that Marxian socialism should be a re-establishment of individual property. Thus, John Keane in his book Civil Society: Old Images, New Visions( Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998, p. 12) named Hirata and his camp the “civil society school of Japanese Marxism” and Andrew E. Barshay called them the “civil society Marxists” in The Social Sciences in Modern Japan: The Marxian and Modernist Traditions( Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004, p. 175). Kiyoaki Hirata( 1922-1995) was born in Tokyo and studied economics at Tokyo University of Commerce (today known as Hitotsubashi University). He taught at Yokohama National University, Saitama University, Nagoya University, and Kyoto University. After his retirement, he was invited to assume the president role at Kagoshima University of Economics. For more information, see Toshio Yamada’s “Hirata Kiyoaki and His Thoughts on Civil Society,” in The History of Economic Thought( July 2014, vol. 56, no. 1), issued by The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought.

著者

篠原 久

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.57, no.2, pp.103-107, 2016 (Released:2019-08-30)

著者

Anna Carabelli

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.57, no.1, pp.104-105, 2015 (Released:2019-11-26)

著者

千賀 重義

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.57, no.1, pp.1-24, 2015 (Released:2019-08-27)

---

Abstract: This paper seeks to examine Takuya Hatoriʼs research on classical economics, clarify his main findings, and appraise their intellectual and historical significance. Hatoriʼs personal his-tory as a scholar of classical economics was largely divided into two periods based on the differences in the objects, methods, and results of his study. In the first half of his research activities, he addressed the problem of the relation between bourgeois revolution and mercan-tilist economics to illuminate the historical meanings of classical economics. Following Yoshihiko Uchidaʼs suggestions, Hatori grasped the mercantilist period in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as a kind of social and political crisis of the country and identi-fied the role of Adam Smithʼs economics as presenting the solution to this crisis. Hatori went on to focus on the classical theories of capital accumulation and argued that classical eco-nomics was formed historically with economistsʼ visions growing and changing by way of recognizing the civil and civilized development of the capitalist economy. In the latter half of his life, Hatori devoted himself to analyzing the theories of classical economics. He spoke of “a working hypothesis which should be positioned as the starting point for our work” and claimed that classical economists presupposed “pure capitalism” when formulating and presenting their economic theories. According to Hatori, Smith, Mal-thus, and Ricardo all struggled to solve “fundamental problems” owing to this supposition about pure capitalism. In his study of Ricardoʼs theory, Hatori argued that Ricardo maintained the theory of absolute value and grasped rent as a nominal value. Indeed, through a detailed investigation of the documents in the Works of Ricardo, Hatori may have even become the first scholar in the world to criticize Piero Sraffaʼs interpretation of the corn-ratio theory. It is difficult to speculate as to why Hatori, in the latter half of his career, changed his approach to the study of classical economics. It appears that he gradually liberated himself from the influence of Uchida and felt more affinity with the economics of Kozo Uno. As the background of intellectual change, we might refer first to the success of Japanese capitalism without realizing the ideal of “civil society” and second to the “student protests” in the late 1960s. JEL classification numbers: B11, B12, B31.

著者

原谷 直樹

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.56, no.2, pp.122-124, 2015 (Released:2019-08-26)

著者

高見 典和

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.56, no.2, pp.129-130, 2015 (Released:2019-11-30)