著者

住谷 一彦

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.46, no.46, pp.108-110, 2004 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

中山 智香子

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.149-151, 2006-06-30 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

中井 大介

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.46-62, 2006-06-30 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

37

---

While Henry Sidgwick may be best known as a moral philosopher and the author of The Methods of Ethics (1874), he made notable contributions spanning economics and other fields as well, one of them being The Principles of Political Economy (1883). Even now The Methods and its treatment of utilitarianism is recognized as an authoritative model for ethical theory, but his conclusion that there is a “dualism of practical reason” has generated a great deal of controversy. The relationship between these two works has not yet been fully analyzed in the scholarly and critical literature. In this paper I demonstrate that the structure of the argument in The Principles is closely related to The Methods.Sidgwick distinguishes economics as a Science (what is) from economics as an Art (what ought to be) based on two moral principles, egoism and utilitarianism, both explicated in The Methods. Sidgwick's Science/Art distinction is instantiated by his distinction between “economic man” and “ordinary man.” Economic man is an abstraction signifying economic behavior based on self-interest. In Sidgwick's argument, Science can employ the idea of economic man to objectively analyze a society where self-interested economic behavior is the norm. Ordinary man, on the other hand, is the ideal of economic behavior motivated by moral rules based on both self-interest and utilitarianism. Art defines those governmental activities desired in a society consisting of “ordinary men.”Self-interested economic activity does not necessarily achieve the preferred results. When it leads to monopoly, for example, it works to reduce social production. The dilemma of Sidgwick's “dualism of practical reason” is the generation of conflict between the outcome of economic man's behavior and the desired results of behavior by ordinary man. As I attempt to show here, in The Principles Sidgwick constructed a role for government that would resolve that problem. Furthermore, using the distinction between Science and Art, and introducing egoism and utilitarianism, Sidgwick tried to resuscitate the ideas of the classical school of political economy.

著者

James M. Buchanan Masazumi Wakatabe Yong J. Yoon

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.124-138, 2006-06-30 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

植村 邦彦

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.66-77, 2004 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

48

---

In 1998, the one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto was celebrated in many “developed” countries. An international conference was held in Paris in May, several new editions of the Communist Manifesto were published, and many journals published special issues. Since then, various Marx readers, and several Marx dictionaries and many books on Marx have been published. Marx-studies seem to be renewed.Readings of Marx change with changing historical and political contexts. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the “actually existing socialism” has already had profound consequences in the world of ideas and in global politics. Many authors discuss Marx “after the fall of communism, ” “for a post-acommunist era, ” or “après les marxismes.” Marx is no longer necessarily the theorist of proletarian revolution. Rather he is now widely considered as a democrat against liberalism, or as the premier critical theorist of capitalist society.One of the focuses in contemporary Marx-studies is the relation between Hegel and Marx. While Althusserian Marxists and “Postmodernists” reject Hegelian inheritance in Marx, Hegelian Marxists insist the continuity between Hegel and Marx. While the former argues that Marx criticized Hegelian liberalism, the latter insists that Hegel was democratic as well as Marx. They, however, agree with each other that Marx was a democrat.Another focus is Marx's approach to ecology. While some argue that Marx was in favor of the human domination of nature, others insist that Marx's approach to nature, especially his concept of the metabolism between nature and society, provides original and useful insights into the environmental crisis under capitalism. Capitalism exploits not only human nature as labor power, but also nature itself as resources. As opposed to some ecologists' critiques, Marx aimed to abolish the alienation of labor and nature entirely. Red and Green can still go together.There have always been multiple Marxes, and each one is a product of a reading strategy. As there were multiple Marxes, so there were multiple debates. Re-reading and re-assessing Marx is itself an important way of thinking and doing, but is also a way of reconstructing a Marx at the same time. So we may not forget, as Terrell Carver says, that Marx is plural for us because our problems are plural.

著者

杉原 四郎

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.43, no.43, pp.114-115, 2003 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

小室 正紀

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.43, no.43, pp.68-86, 2003 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

106

---

This paper surveys mainly the monograph literature regarding Tokugawa economic thought. Considering what the scholars intend to find through their studies, the present article divides the field into four main groups:(i) A view based on the stage theory of development or the concept of European economic thought. In this category are included two kinds of works which attach much importance to the stage theory based on Western economic development. A group of scholars comment on the backwardness of Tokugawa economic thought as compared with the Western economic thought which was imported after the Meiji restoration. Another group tries to analyse Tokugawa economic thought in terms of such European concepts as mercantilism or physiocracy. Recently, the scholars of this category make use of their theories more flexibly than previously, as a tool to grasp the character of Tokugawa traditions.(ii) A view regarding Tokugawa period as the cradle of Japanese economic growth. The scholars of this category consider that the relatively smooth process of Japanese industrialization was prepared in Tokugawa period. These scholars therefore examine the development of knowledge and thought adequate to the burgeoning market economy of that period. Though they provide some valuable analytical insights into Tokugawa economic thought, some of them might describe the ideas of that period as a too modernised aspect.(iii) A view evaluating Confucian economic thought and a view influenced by the post-modern theories. Some scholars in this category think the modern economic society is reaching its limit and evaluate the harmony between economy and morality in Tokugawa Confucianism. Also represented in this category is work inspired by postmodern theory. This kind of study tries to understand the structure or network of miscellaneous discourses, excluding the modern prejudices. Surely this approach shows the world of the thoughts in a certain period realistically, but it should also consider how to regard the world of this period within the context of chronological history.(iv) An attempt to discover the traditions of economic thought by non-professional thinkers. The scholars of this category find much meaning among the economic thought produced by such non-professional thinkers as samurai-bureaucrats, village masters, intelligent merchants, and so on. These scholars evaluate such non-professional thoughts as having a character of their own, finding new materials concerning this kind of subject. However, most of these attempts have not yet been able to connect such thoughts with the whole body of Tokugawa economic thought.The major publications of each of these categories are critically introduced. The general conclusion is as follows. The divisions that have so characterized the field will be perpetuated in some form. But there is a sense that the very virulent and sterile phase of controversy is spent. Though marked by wide differences in approach and broad diversification of subjects, this field of study is maturing, and the described categories are going to stimulate constructively to one another.

著者

井上 義朗

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.95-105, 2002 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

58

---

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief survey of the recent development of Evolutionary Economics. This paper addresses four representative approaches of Evolutionary Economics—Neo-Austrians, Neo-Schumpeterians, Modern Institutionalism, and Structural Dynamics—and investigates their recent theoretical progress and policy implications.The essential points are as follows: Neo-Austrians have gradually tended to shift their central concern from the market process theory to the cognitive or knowledge structure of the subject. It seems that their aim is to deepen the bounded rationality or the conception of subjectivity through the assistance of adjacent disciplines. It is not evident whether this tendency actually produces a new foundation for the alternative market theory. However, judging from the common interests with a faction of the Neo-Schumpeterians which introduces Genetic Programming, it is likely that this will become one of the more popular research programs of Evolutionary Economics.Neo-Schumpeterians seem to have diverged in recent years. Therefore, this paper focuses on the development of replicator dynamics. However, it is also argued that replicator dynamics points out some faults of a newly fashioned laissez-faire principle which seems to be based on Evolutionary Economics. Replicator dynamics turns our attention to the contradictory relationship between innovation and market mechanism through a new perspective on the role of ‘variety.’Modern Institutionalism has two types of cumulative causation; the one is theoretical and policy intended, and the other is methodological and philosophical. This paper indicates the recent shift from the former to the latter in Modern Institutionalisms' concerns.Lastly, it is argued that Structural Dynamics seems to have revived some policy implications of Pasinetti's original model. The policy implication of that model was to apply the growth of productivity to the reduction of input materials including working time, not to increase of amount of goods as usual. This paper investigates some attempts to revive such a forgotten theme, and explores their implications for Evolutionary Economic Policy.

著者

Laurence S. Moss

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.1-17, 2002 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

35

著者

伊藤 誠一郎

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.80-89, 2002 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

31

---

In considering the reasons why W. Petty devised political arithmetic and why C. Davenant, though critical of it, inherited it, it seems too easy to define political arithmetic simply as a practice of gathering numbers or general quantification. Political arithmetic indeed contained its own polemical and political issues, which are impossible to understand without considering its intellectual and socio-economic context. Recent studies have shown that the skepticism and instability of society, as described and presented by Thomas Hobbes, were the essential factors characterizing the society of early modern England. Hobbes and the early political arithmeticians lived in the same milieu; one characterized by instability and fear. In such a society it was hard to reach consensus about what was the truth or accurate knowledge. R. Tuck and C. Muldrew demonstrated how Hobbes tried to overcome this deeply penetrating skepticism by means of political realism and legal authority. S. Shapin and S. Shaffer insisted that in seventeenth century England, what was ‘truth’ was not self-evident, but had to be made clear through the artificial process of the gentlemen's society. Some other elaborate studies on the classical rhetoric of Renaissance England suggested it was doubtful that the abuse of rhetorical skill might distort knowledge, and, on the other hand, that the intellectuals of that time, including Hobbes, must have tried to persuade the audience, using rhetoric as one means to do so. This instability concerning knowledge in early modern England explains the background that political arithmeticians shared with their contemporaries. They sought to acquire more ‘accurate’ quantified data to use for the mercantile policy. J. Brewer and M. Okura set this new method of gathering numbers in the context of international conflict, in which it was used as a means to gain more relative power. To extend their political, economical, and military power, the mercantile states needed more useful and trustworthy information. This involved political arithmetic; knowledge gathering in this context was inherently political from its birth. Neither Petty nor Davenant constructed it solely to support purely scientific Baconian philosophy. They created it and used it with clear tactical intent. Thus, it is implied that there was more behind the birth of political arithmetic than Baconianism and so called civic humanism. For example, classical republicanism was just a part of humanism, which has multiple aspects, including Tacitism and classical rhetoric. In addition to Baconianism, there were various attempts to challenge epistemological and moral-political skepticism.

著者

中山 智香子

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.39, no.39, pp.184-185, 2001 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

安藤 隆穂

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.20-27, 2001 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

65

---

Research on the French Enlightenment has undergone extensive change at the end of the 20th century. The most prominent research approach after World War II, which focused on the Enlightenment's role in the formation of the modern views of society and as a preliminary stage in thought leading up to the French Revolution, has almost disappeared. Freed from traditional methods, research has expanded into many different forms to actress the meaning of issues such as “savage and civilisation”, “views of Asia”, “gender”, “family”, and the “unconscious domain”. The most distinctive feature of this shift is its focus on the Renaissance of Liberalism in the French Enlightenment. In the history of the economic thought, the French line of Liberal economics originating with Boisguilbert has become the mainstream in Enlightenment economic thought. In the new century, the idea of liberty in the French Enlightenment will also continue to play a leading role. Moreover, the notion of the public sphere, which seems to pose the most difficult problem for liberalism, deserves examination. The various other non-liberal schools of thought, especially that of Rousseau, will be the subject of new studies in light of regenerated liberalism.

著者

内田 弘

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.50-57, 2001 (Released:2010-08-05)

---

Marx-studies have brought about significant outcomes in spite of the collapse of the Soviet regime. The history of the extreme controversies following Marx's death reveals the essence of Marxian economics. Marx-lexicons recently published evaluate Marx in the light of the 19th century background and the 21st century problematic background. Following W. Hiromatsu's pioneering critical edition in which he condemns Adoratskij's as a fake, texts of Marx-Engels' German Ideology are reedited in new publications. Marx's theory of disposable time finds its actuality in the signs of post-capitalist society in which people want to utilize free time in realization of social causes regarding ecology, gender, minority and communal activity, etc. Marx's theory of history sees developing countries as articulating elements of a capitalist mode of production through the world system and coming to face the same social needs as industrialized countries.

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.38, no.38, pp.186-188, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

千賀 重義

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.38, no.38, pp.172-173, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

塩野谷 祐一

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.21-27, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

---

A mere chronological description or an exegesis of past major economists does not constitute the history of economics as a discipline of social science. Inspired by a provocative claim of Kozo Sugimura, I have been concerned with the philosophical foundations of the history of economics. Social science observes social reality and constructs theory, which, in turn, becomes an object of observation. Just as a social study, whether historical or theoretical, focuses on social reality and attempts to make a subjective construction of the reality, so a study of theories is merely a subjective construction of those theories because they are a part of social reality. An approach to the history of economics, whether an interpretation or a critique, is also either historical or theoretical, i. e., it is an historical or rational reconstruction of economic thought. In my view, just as economic theory comprises economic statics, economic dynamics, and economic sociology, so metatheory, which is a theory about theory, consists of the philosophy of science, the history of science, and the sociology of science. Thus the structures of theory and metatheory are parallel in the sense that in social science both society and the mind are analyzed at three levels: the static, the dynamic, and the social. Actually based on an examination of the work of Joseph Schumpeter, I have explored a metatheoretical perspective of social science and called this conception of social science a two-structure approach to the mind and society.

著者

小峯 敦

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.36, no.36, pp.64-76, 1998 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

41

---

The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the contribution of Montagu Collet Norman (1871-1950) in comparison with that of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). Norman, Governor of the Bank of England (1920-1994), was one of the key figures responsible for the monetary and industrial policies in interwar Britain.There exist two sharply contrasting interpretations of Norman's work. The first interpretation is represented by Pollard [1922], who criticized Norman for implementing “the Designed Deflationary Policy.” The second can be found in Clay [1957] and Sayers [1976], who appreciated Norman's promotion of “Rationalization in Industry.” Of those in the second camp, Tanaka [1976] in particular characterized Norman's actual intention as “the Dis-deflationary Policy, ” i. e., as a policy intended to avoid further deflationary effects derived from the previous high bank rate.In this paper, I concluded, when reading and reconstructing Norman's and Keynes's letters, memoranda, and other evidence for the Macmillan Committee (1930), that neither of these two understandings of Norman is appropriate. In the present work I introduce a new label for Norman's work: “the Dogma of Independence between Depression and Monetary Policy.”Finally, upon rethinking the motives and results of the monetary and industrial policies of the 1920s in comparison with Keynes's ideas, I conclude that an understanding of Norman's “innovative contribution” as fairly restricted would be the most appropriate.

著者

石塚 良次

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.34, no.34, pp.171, 1996 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

大森 郁夫

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.34, no.34, pp.162, 1996 (Released:2010-08-05)

著者

礒川 曠

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.34, no.34, pp.14-27, 1996 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

15

---

In Marshall's work, the evolutionism is one of the most important components of his system of thought. This view was formed in his psychological study, which was the earliest one in his academic life. His conclusion is that, in the psychological aspect of man, mental action consists of self-consciousness plus mechanical agents; the existence of self-consciousness is an unknowable phenomenon by human experience, but the forms of self-consciousness have evolutioned in correlation with the evolution of mechanical agents. We find especially in this paper, the following three points. First, Marshall's view of evolutionism is very closely like that of H. Spencer, who established his system of philosophy and science in Victorian England. Secondly, in expressing his view on it Marshall attacked the philosophy of consciousness, which maintained that self-consciousness is forever. Thirdly, Marshall came to distinguish self-consciousness from soul through the reading of J. Grote's work ‘Exploratio Philosophica’ (1865).