DOCSLIB.ORG

The Provocative Joan Robinson: the Making of a Cambridge Economist

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Provocative Joan Robinson: the Making of a Cambridge Economist The Provocative Joan Robinson science and cultural theory A Series Edited by Barbara Herrnstein Smith & E. Roy Weintraub MaIkhoh\Zmbo ChZgKh[bglh# Ma^FZdbg`h_Z <Zf[kb]`^>\hghfb GZab]:leZg[^b`nb@nrHZd^l =ndNgbo^klbmrIk^ll =nkaZfEhg]hg +))2 © 2009 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ∞ Designed by Jennifer Hill Typeset in Carter and Cone Galliard by Achorn International Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data appear on the last printed page of this book. Photograph on previous spread: Joan Robinson. © reserved; collection Marshall Library of Economics, Cambridge. In memory of parvin aslanbeigui, m.d. 1 9 5 9 – 2 0 0 7 *) ** *+ *, *- *. */ *0 *1 *2 +) +* ++ +, +- +. +/ +0 +1 +2 ,) ,* ,+ ,, ,- ,. ,/ ,0 ,1 ,2 -) ` c o n t e n t s ` Acknowledgments ix Collage with Woman in Foreground 1 1. The Improbable Theoretician 17 Excursus: Robinson and Kahn 51 2. The Making of The Economics of Imperfect Competition 89 3. Becoming a Keynesian 161 “Who Is Joan Robinson?” 235 Notes 247 Bibliography 279 Index 295 ` acknowledgments ` Our warmest thanks to Geoff Harcourt, who read an entire draft and wrote elaborate notes, saving us, to paraphrase Joan Robinson, from our headlong errors. We are also grateful to Prue Kerr and Michele Naples, who read parts of a draft and offered helpful suggestions. Two readers for Duke University Press made valuable criticisms on which we acted. The usual caveats apply. For permission to quote unpublished copyrighted material, we ac- knowledge the following: Sir Nicholas Henderson for permission to publish from the papers of Hubert Henderson; David Papineau for per- mission to publish from the papers of Richard Kahn; John Elmen Taussig for permission to publish from the papers of Frank Taussig; Seymour Weissman for permission to publish from the papers of Evan Durbin; by kind permission of the Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge, to quote from the unpublished papers of Austin and Joan Robinson; King’s College for permission to quote from the unpublished writings of Edward Austin Gossage Robinson, Joan Robinson, and John May- nard Keynes, copyright The Provost and Scholars of King’s College Cam- bridge 2009; the Syndics of Cambridge University Library for permis- sion to publish from the minutes of meetings of the Faculty Board of Economics and Politics and the General Board of the Faculties; and The Cambridgeshire Collection, Cambridge Central Library for permission to reproduce Ramsey & Muspratt photographs. We thank VS Verlag for permission to reproduce part of our essay “The Importance of Being at Cambridge” and the Journal of the History of Economic Thought for permission to reproduce in part two of our arti- cles: “Joan Robinson’s ‘Secret Document’: A Passage from the Autobiog- raphy of an Analytical Economist” and “The Twilight of the Marshallian Guild: The Culture of Cambridge Economics Circa 1930.” For archival assistance, we are grateful to the archivists and librarians of King’s College, the Marshall Library of Economics, the Cambridge University Library, and the Wren Library at Cambridge University and the National Library of Norway in Oslo. For research assistance, we thank Linda Fette Knox, Kristin McDonald, Andre Renaudo, and Linda Silverstein. Research on this book was supported by Grants-in-Aid-for Creativity and the Jack T. Kvernland Chair, Monmouth University. ` acknowledgments Collage with Woman in Foreground here’s to you, mrs. robinson Joan Robinson was one of the most original and prolific economists of the twentieth century and unquestionably the most important woman in the history of economic thought. In the latter regard, no one else comes close, not even the abundantly gifted Rosa Luxemburg, the Marxist econo­ mist and political leader whose work she came to admire in the 1940s. Her publications in economic theory began in 1932 and ended two years after her death, in 1983. A comprehensive but incomplete bibliography compiled by Cristina Marcuzzo (1996) runs to 443 items, a body of work that covers most of economic theory: production, distribution, employ­ ment, accumulation, innovation, and economic growth as well as meth­ odological and philosophical reflections and contributions to the study of economic education. Since 1933, there has been an extensive and lively lit­ erature on Robinsonia. It has grown considerably since her death and the centenary of her birth in 1903.1 A book on her life and work by Geoffrey Harcourt, her Cambridge colleague and friend of many years, and Prue Kerr, her student and friend, is in preparation. Robinson studied economics at Cambridge University, where she made a career that lasted some fifty years. Her work falls into three re­ search programs, each a product of developments in economic theory at Cambridge: the innovations from the mid-1920s to the early 1930s that led to the theory of imperfect competition, the Keynesian revolution of the 1930s, and the attempts in the 1950s and 1960s to develop a general analysis of long-term economic growth. Her first book, The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933d), achieved international recognition. In the early 1930s, she also became an ardent follower of John Maynard Keynes’s new approach to economics. Soon after The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money appeared in 1936, she published Essays in the Theory of Employment (1937a), which refined and extended Keynes’s ideas. She fol­ lowed this book with the Introduction to the Theory of Employment (1937b), a Keynesian primer designed to revolutionize undergraduate pedagogy in economics. Shortly after publication of The General Theory, Robinson concluded that neither neoclassical nor Keynesian economics could account for long- term economic changes. However, she was convinced that if Keynes’s ideas were reformulated and generalized on the basis of supplementary assump­ tions, such an analysis would be possible. This was her last major effort: the development of a dynamic theory of capital accumulation that rested on the assumptions of historicity and historical temporality. Its result was The Accumulation of Capital (1956), a daunting work of uncompromis­ ing formalism and an important stimulus of the “capital controversy,” one of the most acrimonious disputes in the history of economic analysis. The debate spanned two decades, produced hundreds of books, articles, and notes, and consumed the energies of its antagonists.2 To Robinson’s dismay and consternation, neoclassical economists admitted the validity of her criticisms but dismissed them as empirically inconsequential and irrelevant. Thus the battle ended not with a bang but a whimper. Robinson ended her long career covered with honors. In 1971, she de­ livered the prestigious Richard T. Ely address of the American Economic Association. The year before, no less a figure than Paul Samuelson judged her “one of the greatest analytical economists of our era” (Samuelson 1970, 397). An honorary doctorate from Harvard followed in 1980. Through­ out, she remained enmeshed in controversy: denouncing neoclassical eco­ nomics for failing to address the most serious economic problems of the ` collage with woman in foreground time, censuring American economic theory for contributing to the nuclear arms race, attacking the government of Margaret Thatcher in Great Brit­ ain, and celebrating the communist regimes of China and North Korea. In surveying Robinson’s work, Samuelson concluded that a number of her accomplishments would merit the Nobel Memorial Prize in econom­ ics, which was created in 1969 (Samuelson 1970, 397). By the mid-1970s, she was under consideration by the Swedish Academy. Although appar­ ently short-listed for several years, she was repeatedly passed over. The reasons offered by her contemporaries varied considerably. Would she be considered on the basis of The Economics of Imperfect Competition, her best-known and most successful book? That seemed likely, in which case an award would have been awkward. Edward Chamberlin’s doctoral dis­ sertation at Harvard in 1927, revised and published a few months before her book appeared, covered the same ground (1933). But he had died in 1967. Moreover, Robinson had recanted much of the book’s argument and mode of analysis (see Robinson 1953). She was an unsparing critic of orthodox economics and rejected its dependence on mathematical models and quantification generally. She exhibited the public persona of a radical of the left, claiming to find virtues in both the Maoist Cultural Revolu­ tion and the North Korean totalitarian state of Kim Il Sung. Her writings often gave the impression that her greatest strength lay in polemics rather than in building original theories of her own. She was a woman in a dis­ cipline overwhelmingly dominated by men. Finally, she seems to have adopted, or perhaps affected, a Sartre-like pose toward the Nobel Prize by holding it in some contempt. If she did not want it and would not accept it, it would not be surprising if the Swedish Academy was reluctant to of­ fer it (Turner 1989, 214–21). After her death, Robinson achieved near canonization in the eulogies of numerous economists, including several perennial adversaries whose work was quite remote from the Cambridge tradition. The Robinsonian conduct of intellectual life as a mode of partisan warfare was interpreted as a mark of flinty integrity and selfless dedication to the pursuit of truth, uncompromised by academic ambition (Matthews 1989, 911–15; Goodwin 1989, 916–17). One commentator even saw in her “the stark and deadly simplicity of Antigone” (Walsh 1989, 881). Milton Friedman, not a cham­ pion of Cambridge economics, declared that economists would have achieved a rare consensus in judging Robinson the only woman to meet collage with woman in foreground ` the standards of the Swedish Academy (Friedman 1986, 77). She would not have taken the compliment. In her view, economic theory was an an­ drogynous enterprise, and her work transcended differences of gender.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Socialism in the Twentieth Century: a Historical Reflection
    THE ＧＬＯＢＡＬＩＺＡＴＩＯＮ ＆ ＧＯVＥＲＮＡＮＣＥ ＰＲＯＪＥCＴ， ＨＯＫＫＡＩＤＯ ＵＮＩＶＥＲＳＩＴＹ ＷＯＲＫＩＮＧ ＰＡＰＥＲ ＳＥＲＩＥＳ Socialism in the Twentieth Century: a historical reflection Ⅰ－１１ Donald Sassoon, University of London ＊ Paper for the Symposium, East Asia-Europe-USA Progressive Scholars’ Forum 2003 , 11-15 October, 2003. ＊ None of these papers should be cited without the author’s permission. East Asia-Europe- USA Progressive Scholars’ Forum, 2003 Socialism in the Twentieth Century: a historical reflection Donald Sassoon Queen Mary, University of London 1. Introduction Those who venture to discuss the meaning of socialism confront two distinct but not incompatible strategies: the essentialist and the historical. The essentialist strategy proceeds in conventional Weberian fashion. Socialism is an ideal-type, empirically deduced from the activities or ideas of those commonly regarded as socialists. Once the concept is constructed, it can be used historically to assess concrete political organisations, their activists and thinkers and measure the extent to which they fit the ideal type, why and when they diverge from each other, and account for exceptional behaviour. This procedure, of great heuristic value, is still broadly accepted and widely used, even though its theoretical rigour is highly dubious as the analysis rests on a somewhat arbitrary selection of the ‘socialist’ organisations and individuals used to produce the ideal-type concept of socialism. This procedure has the added disadvantage that, if strictly adhered to, it does not allow for historical change. Once the ideal-type is defined, novel elements cannot easily be integrated into it. However, life must go on, even in sociology. So when something new turns up, such as a revisionist interpretation, all that is required is to hoist the ideal-type onto the operating table, remove -if necessary- the bits which no longer fit, and insert the new ones.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Introduction 2 the Economics of Imperfect Competition
    Notes 1 Introduction 1. It should be noted that Joan Robinson might have been very angry at being so described. Marjorie Turner, in discussing Mary Paley Marshall’s reaction to The Economics of Imperfect Competition (Robinson, 1933a), points out that Joan Robinson ‘thought of her own reputation as being that of an economist and not a woman-economist’ (Turner, 1989, 12–13; see also below, 8–9. 2. Luigi Pasinetti brilliantly describes their approaches and interrelationships, and evaluates their collective contributions in his entry on Joan Robinson in The New Palgrave (Pasinetti, 1987; see also 2007). 3. The editors of the Cambridge Journal of Economics, of which she was a Patron, had been preparing a special issue in honour of her eightieth birthday. Sadly, it had to be a Memorial issue instead (see the special issue of December 1983). 4. For an absorbing account of the Maurice debates and the events and issues surrounding them, see Wilson and Prior (2004, 2006). 5. In private conversation with GCH. 6. It was widely thought at Cambridge, in pre- and post-war years, that Marjorie Tappan-Hollond was responsible for Joan Robinson never being elected to a teaching fellowship at Girton (it was only after Joan Robinson retired that she became an Honorary Fellow of Girton and the Joan Robinson Society, which met on 31 October (her birth date) each year, was started). Marjorie Turner documents that there was mutual personal affection between them and even concern on Tappan-Hollond’s part for her former pupil but that she strongly disapproved of Joan Robinson’s ‘messianic’ approach to teaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Allen Lane Particular Books Pelican Books Penguin Classics Penguin Modern Classics Penguin Paperbacks 3 31 41 49 55 75
    CONTENTS Allen Lane 3 Particular Books 31 Pelican Books 41 Penguin Classics 49 Penguin Modern Classics 55 Penguin Paperbacks 75 Penguin Press 80 Strand London 1 1 2 3 3 3 The Secret World Money and Government A History of Intelligence Unsettled Issues in Macroeconomics Christopher Andrew Robert Skidelsky A stupendous history of intelligence, its uses and its neglect A major challenge to economic orthodoxy, by one of - by the world's leading historian of intelligence Britain's leading historians and economists The history of espionage is far older than any of today's The dominant view in economics is that money and intelligence agencies, yet the long history of intelligence government should play only a minor role in economic life. operations has been largely forgotten. The first mention of Money, it is claimed, is nothing more than a medium of espionage in world literature is in the Book of Exodus.'God exchange; and economic outcomes are best left to the sent out spies into the land of Canaan'. From there, 'invisible hand' of the market. The view taken in this important Christopher Andrew traces the shift in the ancient world from new book is that the omnipresence of uncertainty make money divination to what we would recognize as attempts to gather and government essential features of any market economy. real intelligence in the conduct of military operations, and One reason we need money is because we don't know what considers how far ahead of the West - at that time - China and the future will bring. Government - good government - makes India were.
    [Show full text]
  • KALDOR's WAR J.E. King*
    DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS ISSN 1441-5429 DISCUSSION PAPER 25/07 KALDOR’S WAR * J.E. King * Department of Economics and Finance, La Trobe University, Victoria 3086, Australia Email: [email protected] © 2007 J.E. King All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form, or stored in a retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the author. Introduction In the 1930s the young Nicholas Kaldor (1908-1986) established himself as one of the world’s leading economic theorists (King 2007). As with so many lives, Kaldor’s was turned around by the Second World War. This was not the result of enemy action. Although his family in Hungary suffered grievously at the hands of the Nazis, Nicky himself was not called to arms. While he had become a British citizen in 1934, and made enquiries about joining the Civil Service as an economic advisor, he was told that his Hungarian origins would disqualify him from anything other than menial duties in Whitehall. He therefore decided to stay in academia, and relocated to Cambridge with his remaining LSE colleagues in September 1939, when the Ministry of Works took over the School’s Aldwych site in central London .1 Now based at Peterhouse, Kaldor was able to deepen old friendships and develop new ones. A ‘war circus’ of economists began to operate, named by analogy with the ‘Cambridge circus’ of young theorists who had interrogated Keynes in 1930- 1 after the publication of the Treatise on Money and helped to focus his mind on the revolutionary breakthrough of the General Theory (Moggridge 1995, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Joan Robinson from the Generalization of the General Theory to the Development of an 'Anglo-Italian' Cambridge Tradition
    Joan Robinson from the generalization of the General Theory to the development of an ‘Anglo-Italian’ Cambridge tradition Yara Zeineddine – PhD Candidate, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, PHARE Abstract The project of developing a synthesis between Post-Keynesians and Neo-Ricardians (known as the post-classical synthesis) is almost as old as the development of Post-Keynesian economics. In this paper, I highlight one of the first attempts to such a synthesis: that of Joan Robinson. After the publication of The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (Keynes 1936), Joan Robinson (1903-1983) gave herself the mission of disseminating Keynes’s message through vulgarizing his approach (Robinson 1936) and extending it to the long period (Robinson 1937). She deplored that Keynes did not study the long period well enough to assess the effects of the modification of productive capacity on the economy, and hence to discuss the determination of profits in the long term. However, her Essays in the Theory of Employment (1937) was criticized by Keynes himself (Kregel 1983) as he rejected her application of marginal analysis to a heterogeneous stock of capital. Following this, Robinson found a new inspiration in Sraffa’s introduction to Ricardo’s Principles (1951) as she acknowledged it in the foreword of The Accumulation of capital (Robinson 1956). There, she clearly pursues her objective of extending Keynes’s analysis to the long period, using this time the classics’ approach as depicted by Sraffa in 1951. From this point on, extending Keynes’s analysis to the long period meant to her conciliating Sraffa’s approach with Keynes’s analysis of the short period (Rima 1991, Robinson 1977, Turner 1989) in what she called the “Anglo-Italian” Cambridge tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Structural Reform and Economic Policy
    Structural Reform and Economic Policy Edited by Robert M. Solow Structural Reform and Economic Policy This is IEA conference volume no. 139 This page intentionally left blank Structural Reform and Economic Policy Edited by Robert M. Solow Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA, USA in association with the INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ASSOCIATION © International Economic Association 2004 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No paragraph of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, 90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1T 4LP. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2004 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS and 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10010 Companies and representatives throughout the world PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global academic imprint of the Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Macmillan® is a registered trademark in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. Palgrave is a registered trademark in the European Union and other countries. ISBN 1–4039–3646–3 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Kaldor After Sraffa
    BULLETIN OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 13:1 (2019): 1-19 Kaldor after Sraffa ÓSCAR DEJUÁN Abstract: Kaldor led the postKeynesian school in an attempt to project Keynes’ principle of effective demand into the long run, the realm of growth theories. This paper examines Kaldor’s major contributions to growth, technical change, distribution and money, in order to integrate them into the surplus approach. An approach that combines the classical- Sraffian theory of value and distribution with the Keynesian- postKeynesian theory of output and money. An approach that considers capitalism as a demand- constrained system, both in the short run and in the long run, without neglecting the limits derived from the supply side. Keywords: Surplus approach; principle of effective demand; growth and distribution; supermultiplier; Sraffa; Kaldor JEL Codes: B24, E11, E12 INTRODUCTION The lives and intellectual activity of Nicholas Kaldor (1908-1986) and Piero Sraffa (1898-1983) present many similarities and, surprisingly, mutual ignorance. Both worked at the University of Cambridge for more than 30 years. Both were the bastions of the resistance against the marginalist revolution in microeconomics and the Grand Neoclassical Synthesis in macroeconomics. Yet, the communication between them was minimal1. The different personal tempers and different styles of research may explain the lack of communication between them. The mind of Nicholas Kaldor was a boiler in continuous ebullition. His works fill eight volumes, apart from several books in a variety of subjects (N. Kaldor, 1960-80). Regarding Sraffa, we can apply Aquinas’ dictum “Beware of the person of one book”, a sentence that involves an appreciation of the minds with few but coherent and powerful ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Economic Methodology Sen, Sraffa and the Revival Of
    This article was downloaded by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] On: 22 June 2012, At: 07:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Economic Methodology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjec20 Sen, Sraffa and the revival of classical political economy Nuno Ornelas Martins a a University of the Azores, Azores, PortugalCentro de Estudos em Gestão e Economia Available online: 22 Jun 2012 To cite this article: Nuno Ornelas Martins (2012): Sen, Sraffa and the revival of classical political economy, Journal of Economic Methodology, 19:2, 143-157 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2012.683598 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicholas Kaldor
    PROFILES OF WORLD ECONOMISTS 26 NICHOLAS KALDOR NICHOLAS KALDOR – ONE OF THE FIRST CRITICS OF MONETARISM doc. Ing. Ján Iša, DrSc. Known in economic circles as one of the thought in several fields, but it was his work founders of Post-Keynesianism, Nicholas on the theory of distribution and economic Kaldor (1908–1986) ranks among the worl- growth that stirred the greatest reaction. d's foremost economists of the second half Less well-known, however, is Kaldor's con- of the 20th century. Kaldor contributed to tribution to monetary theory, which has long the development of modern economic been standing quietly in the background. Nicholas Kaldor was born in Budapest on 12 May 1908. rous Third World countries, as well as an advisor to central His father was a lawyer and his mother came from wealthy banks and to the United Nations Economic Commission for business family. Although his father had wanted him to Latin America. Most significant, however, was his role as an study law, Kaldor opted for economics. He began his studi- advisor to Labour finance ministers from 1964 to 1968 and es at the University of Berlin in 1925 and then after two 1974 to 1976. After completing his two-year mission in years moved to the London School of Economics (LSE), Geneva in 1949, Kaldor began to work at Cambridge Uni- from which he graduated in 1930. He remained at the LSE versity and became, as John Maynard Keynes had been, a as lecturer until 1947, during which time his colleagues inc- fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Cervantes and the Spanish Baroque Aesthetics in the Novels of Graham Greene
    TESIS DOCTORAL Título Cervantes and the spanish baroque aesthetics in the novels of Graham Greene Autor/es Ismael Ibáñez Rosales Director/es Carlos Villar Flor Facultad Facultad de Letras y de la Educación Titulación Departamento Filologías Modernas Curso Académico Cervantes and the spanish baroque aesthetics in the novels of Graham Greene, tesis doctoral de Ismael Ibáñez Rosales, dirigida por Carlos Villar Flor (publicada por la Universidad de La Rioja), se difunde bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Unported. Permisos que vayan más allá de lo cubierto por esta licencia pueden solicitarse a los titulares del copyright. © El autor © Universidad de La Rioja, Servicio de Publicaciones, 2016 publicaciones.unirioja.es E-mail: [email protected] CERVANTES AND THE SPANISH BAROQUE AESTHETICS IN THE NOVELS OF GRAHAM GREENE By Ismael Ibáñez Rosales Supervised by Carlos Villar Flor Ph.D A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy At University of La Rioja, Spain. 2015 Ibáñez-Rosales 2 Ibáñez-Rosales CONTENTS Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………….......5 INTRODUCTION ...…………………………………………………………...….7 METHODOLOGY AND STRUCTURE………………………………….……..12 STATE OF THE ART ..……….………………………………………………...31 PART I: SPAIN, CATHOLICISM AND THE ORIGIN OF THE MODERN (CATHOLIC) NOVEL………………………………………38 I.1 A CATHOLIC NOVEL?......................................................................39 I.2 ENGLISH CATHOLICISM………………………………………….58 I.3 THE ORIGIN OF THE MODERN
    [Show full text]
  • Russell and the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club L by Jack Pitt
    Russell and the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club l by Jack Pitt IN HIS Autobiography Russell records his extreme satisfaction at being elected to the fraternal discussion group at Cambridge familiarly known as the Apostles. 2 In addition to including a number of congratulatory letters from elder Apostles, he writes: "The greatest happiness ofmy time at Cambridge was connected with a body whom its members knew as 'The Society,' but which outsiders, if they knew of it, called 'The Apostles.'''3 The sub­ sequent notoriety of this group obscured the fact that Russell I Gratitude is expressed to those at the University of Cambridge who kindly provided access to the Minutes of the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club. The Minutes have been invaluable in constructing an historical context in which to locate Russell's participation in the Club, and in providing many details pertinent to that participation. 2 Its complete name is the Cambridge Conversazione Society. Its character and history is treated in Paul Levy's fascinating study, G. E. Moore and the Cam­ bridge Apostles (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979). I am indebted to this book for many points of fact in this essay, especially as these concern members of the Society. The interested reader may also wish to consult Peter Allen's The Cambridge Apostles: The Early Years (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). 3 Autobiography, 1872-1914 (Boston: Atlantic-Little, Brown, 1967), p. 91. 103 104 Russell winter 1981-82 Russell and the Cambridge Moral Sciences Club 105 maintained membership in other Cambridge societies. for The Athenaeum. Another of those in attendance was Alfred Philosophically the most important, and the one which will con­ Williams Momerie (Mummery), subsequently Professor of Logic cern us here, is the Cambridge University Moral Sciences Club and Metaphysics (1880-91) at King's College, London, and also (CUMSC).
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Marketing's Intellectual History, and the Product Differentiation Versus Market Segmen
    Journal of Macromarketing 31(1) 73-84 ª The Author(s) 2011 The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Marketing’s Intellectual History, and the DOI: 10.1177/0276146710382119 Product Differentiation Versus Market http://jmk.sagepub.com Segmentation Controversy Shelby D. Hunt1 Abstract Edward Chamberlin’s theory of monopolistic competition influenced greatly the development of marketing theory and thought in the 1930s to the 1960s. Indeed, marketers held the theory in such high regard that the American Marketing Association awarded Chamberlin the Paul D. Converse Award in 1953, which at the time was the AMA’s highest honor. However, the contemporary marketing literature virtually ignores Chamberlin’s theory. The author argues that the theory of monopolistic competition deserves reexamining on two grounds. First, marketing scholars should know their discipline’s intellectual history, to which Chamberlin’s theory played a significant role in developing. Second, understanding the theory of monopolistic competition can inform contemporary marketing thought. Although our analysis will point out several contributions of the theory, one in partic- ular is argued in detail: the theory of monopolistic competition can contribute to a better understanding of the ‘‘product differ- entiation versus market segmentation’’ controversy in marketing strategy. Keywords Chamberlin, marketing strategy, product differentiation, market segmentation As research specialization has increased, ... knowledge outside Despite the theory’s defeat in economics, the theory of of a person’s specialty may first be viewed as noninstrumental, monopolistic competition (hereafter, TMC) influenced greatly then as nonessential, then as nonimportant, and finally as the development of marketing theory and thought in the 1930s nonexistent.
    [Show full text]