DOCSLIB.ORG

Edgeworth's Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Edgeworth's Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility Edgeworth's Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility by David Colander June 2007 MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER NO. 07-23 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS MIDDLEBURY COLLEGE MIDDLEBURY, VERMONT 05753 http://www.middlebury.edu/~econ Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 21, Number 2—Spring 2007—Pages 215–225 Retrospectives Edgeworth’s Hedonimeter and the Quest to Measure Utility David Colander This feature addresses the history of economic terms and ideas. The hope is to deepen the workaday dialogue of economists, while perhaps also casting new light on ongoing questions. If you have suggestions for future topics or authors, please write to Joseph Persky, c/o Journal of Economic Perspectives, Department of Econom- ics (M/C 144), University of Illinois at Chicago, 601 South Morgan Street, Room 2103, Chicago, Illinois 60607-7121. Introduction Economic thought progresses in fits and starts as promising avenues of research are explored, and then backed away from as researchers change their focus to other, seemingly more promising avenues of research. Then, as still other developments raise questions about these new avenues or as technological devel- opments occur, the older avenues of research become more attractive and are reexplored with new understanding and new knowledge. That pattern of ebb and flow seems to be happening with economists’ study of the foundations of utility theory and measurement, which increasingly is attracting the attention of modern researchers (Easterlin, 2002; Kahneman, Diener, and Schwartz, 1999; Layard, 2005; Camerer, Lowenstein, and Prelec, 2005; Kahneman and Krueger, 2006; Reder, 2006; Bruni and Porta, 2005). In this article, I discuss some earlier debates about the foundations of utility and its measurement, focusing on the contributions of Francis Y. Edgeworth (1845–1926), a famous British economist who was a leader in the development of y David Colander is the Christian A. Johnson Distinguished Professor of Economics, Middle- bury College, Middlebury, Vermont. His e-mail address is ͗[email protected]͘. 216 Journal of Economic Perspectives a more mathematically structured economics in the late 1800s, and Irving Fisher (1867–1947), one of the first quantitative U.S. economists, best-known today for his work on the quantity theory and interest rate theory. Edgeworth argued that utility was directly measurable and that new developments in “physio-psychology” would make it possible to develop a “hedonimeter” that would allow economists to develop a firm physiological underpinning of utility. Fisher, while agreeing with Edgeworth that it was important to have a workable measure of utility, disagreed with Edgeworth about the possibility of doing so with a hedonimeter and, hence, of having any physiological underpinnings of utility. He argued that instead of search- ing for physiological underpinnings of utility, economists should instead rely upon backward induction from observed behavior to measured utility. Neither of these views about the possibility of utility measurement carried through, and attempts to measure utility were abandoned in the 1930s, when utility measurement and happiness considerations were determined to be outside the purview of economics. There are, of course, many aspects of the debate about the dimensionality and measurability of utility. In this paper, I focus on the historical debate over whether economists should be searching for a direct measurement of utility or an indirect measurement of utility. I do not enter the historical debates about ordinal and cardinal dimensions of measurement, the additive aspects of utility functions, or the issues surrounding indifference curve analysis. Discussions of these topics can be found in history-of-thought books, such as Blaug (1996), and in Stigler’s (1950) classic discussion of the history of utility theory. Edgeworth’s Hedonimeter In the 1870s, economics was moving away from classical theories of value based on labor or cost, and moving toward neoclassical theories, which were associated with a mathematization and formalization of economics, a process that gave greater focus to utilitarian foundations of value. In this context, the measurability of utility became a central topic. Edgeworth entered the discussion when in Mathematical Psychics (1881 [1961]), his most famous book, he responded to some pessimistic views about the measur- ability of utility that had recently been expressed by William Stanley Jevons (1835– 1882).1 Edgeworth posited the development of a hedonimeter that would measure utility, which he felt was necessary for the extension of utility analysis to the real world. To posit this hedonimeter, he first had to develop precisely what was meant by a unit of pleasure, which he does in Appendix III of Mathematical Psychics. Edgeworth admits (p. 98) that there is “much difficulty here” and that “hedonism 1 It is often very difficult in the history of thought to specify an author’s views unambiguously, both because those views change and because their views can be interpreted differently in different contexts. As Stigler (1950) points out, stating precisely what Jevons believed about measuring utility is very difficult, since his writings present a number of contradictory views. David Colander 217 may still be in the state of heat or electricity before they became exact sciences, as described by Professor Jevons”; but Edgeworth finds that it is nonetheless useful to “endeavour to gain as clear a view as may be,” and he discusses the quantitative estimates that a person can make of his own pleasure or the pleasure of others. Edgeworth (p. 101; italics in the original) describes in practical terms how a hedonimeter would work. He writes: To precise [sic] the ideas, let there be granted to the science of pleasure what is granted to the science of energy; to imagine an ideally perfect instrument, a psychophysical machine, continually registering the height of pleasure experienced by an individual, exactly according to the verdict of conscious- ness, or rather diverging therefrom according to a law of errors. From moment to moment the hedonimeter varies; the delicate index now flickering with the flutter of the passions, now steadied by intellectual activity, low sunk whole hours in the neighbourhood of zero, or momentarily springing up towards infinity. The continually indicated height is registered by photographic or other frictionless apparatus upon a uniformly moving vertical plane. Then the quantity of happiness between two epochs is represented by the area con- tained between the zero-line, perpendiculars thereto at the points corre- sponding to the epochs, and the curve traced by the index; or, if the correction suggested in the last paragraph be admitted, another dimension will be required for the representation. The integration must be extended from the present to the infinitely future time to constitute the end of pure egoism. Edgeworth (1881 [1961], p. 102) then extends his reasoning to all individuals: “We have only to add another dimension expressing the number of sentients, and to integrate through all time and over all sentience, to constitute the end of pure utilitarianism.” Edgeworth recognized the practical problems of aggregating across individual utilities, but he argued (p. 102) that the “greater uncertainty of hedon- imetry in the case of others’ pleasures may be compensated by the greater number of measurements, a wider average; just as, according to the theory of probabilities, greater accuracy may be attained by more numerous observations with a less perfect instrument.” He further argued that this machine would, in principle, offer recon- ciliation between egoism and altruism, since the pleasure that people take in the happiness of others would be measurable, or as Edgeworth (p. 104) put it, the hedonimeter would integrate into utility “the psychical side of a physical change in what may be dimly discerned as a sort of hedonico-magnetic field.” Edgeworth’s discussion of hedonic measurement was based on developments in psychology, where “psychophysics” was seen as cutting-edge work at the time. Psychophysicists were interested in developing a sensory theory that related exter- nal stimuli to individual feelings. Psychophysics was built on work by Ernst Weber (1795–1878), a professor of physiology at the University of Leipzig who conducted experiments that explored the relationships between physical sensory sensations 218 Journal of Economic Perspectives and external stimuli. For example, Weber blindfolded people who were holding weights, and added additional weights in small increments. He had the individuals indicate when they sensed the increased weight. In doing so, he found that people’s sense of additional weight was proportional to the relative, not the absolute, increase in weight, so that when the weight the blindfolded person was holding was doubled, the threshold for sensing the increased weight also doubled. He found that that this general relationship held not only for perceptions of weight, but also for perceptions of visions and sound. Weber’s work (1834 [1978]) was publicized and extended by G. T. Fechner (1801–1887) in Elements of Psychophysics (1860 [1966]). Fechner suggested a theo- retical explanation for Weber’s observations and put the relationships in functional form, which he called Weber’s Law, but which later psychologists called the Weber–Fechner Law. In mathematical form that law is ϭ ⅐ ͑ ͒ p k ln S/S0 , where p is the individual’s perception of a change, S is the added stimulus, S0 is the beginning stimulus, and k is the relationship parameter.2 Thus, for example, if one were initially holding a large weight, one would need a larger weight added for one to perceive the difference than one would if one were initially holding a smaller weight. Fechner (1860 [1966], p. 7) waxed eloquent about psychophysics, arguing that it can be seen as “an exact theory of the functionally dependent relations of body and soul.” In attempting to develop a theoretical foundation of the relationship, Fechner referred back to Rene Descartes, who saw the pineal gland as the place where body and soul met.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 240 Years of the Wealth of Nations 240 Anos De a Riqueza Das Nações
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6351/3743 240 years of The Wealth of Nations 240 anos de A Riqueza das Nações Maria Pia Paganelli Trinity University Abstract Resumo Why should we read a book printed 240 Por que deveríamos ler um livro publicado há years ago? The book is old. Our circum- 240 anos? Trata-se de um livro antigo. Nossas stances and institutions are different. Its ex- circunstâncias e instituições são diferentes. Seus amples are dated. Its policies are irrelevant exemplos são datados. Suas recomendações de today. Its economic theories are full of mis- política são irrelevantes hoje. Suas teorias econô- takes. Even its political ideology is ambigu- micas estão repletas de erros. Mesmo a sua ideo- ous. So, why bother reading this old book? logia política é ambígua. Então, por que se dar ao trabalho de ler este velho livro? Keywords Palavras-chave Adam Smith; Wealth of Nations; wealth; Adam Smith; A Riqueza das Nações; riqueza; growth; justice. crescimento; justiça. JEL Codes B12; O10. Códigos JEL B12; O10. v.27 n.2 p.7-19 2017 Nova Economia� 7 Paganelli “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies” Friedrich Nietzsche Why would anybody care to read a book that is almost two and a half centuries old? Better (or worse), why would anybody refer to – and yet not read – a book that is well over two centuries old? Or maybe I should ask: why should anybody read a book that is well over two centuries old? Age aside, the Wealth of Nations is also in many ways a dated book.
    [Show full text]
  • Visionary Calculations Inventing the Mathematical Economy in Nineteenth-Century America
    Visionary Calculations Inventing the Mathematical Economy in Nineteenth-Century America By Rachel Knecht B.A., Tufts University, 2011 M.A., Brown University, 2014 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History at Brown University. Providence, Rhode Island May 2018 © Copyright 2018 by Rachel Knecht This dissertation of Rachel Knecht is accepted in its present form by the Department of History as satisfying the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Date __________________ ______________________________________ Seth Rockman, Advisor Recommended to the Graduate Council Date __________________ ______________________________________ Joan Richards, Reader Date __________________ ______________________________________ Lukas Rieppel, Reader Approved by the Graduate Council Date __________________ ______________________________________ Andrew Campbell, Dean of the Graduate School iii Vitae Rachel Knecht received her B.A. in History from Tufts University, magna cum laude, in 2011 and her M.A. in History from Brown University in 2014. Her research has been supported by the Program in Early American Economy and Society at the Library Company of Philadelphia, the American Philosophical Society, the American Antiquarian Society, and the member institutions of the New England Regional Consortium, as well as the Department of History and Graduate School at Brown University. In 2017, she received a Deans’ Faculty Fellowship from Brown and joined the History Department as a Visiting Professor in 2018. iv Acknowledgements This dissertation is the product of many years of help, support, criticism, and inspiration. I am deeply indebted not only to the following people, but also to many others who have encouraged me to see this project to its completion.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003-08 Meltzer's History of the Federal Reserve David Laidler
    Western University Scholarship@Western Department of Economics Research Reports Economics Working Papers Archive 2003 2003-08 Meltzer's History of the Federal Reserve David Laidler Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/economicsresrpt Part of the Economics Commons Citation of this paper: Laidler, David. "2003-08 Meltzer's History of the Federal Reserve." Department of Economics Research Reports, 2003-8. London, ON: Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario (2003). Meltzer=s History of the Federal Reserve A Review of A History of the Federal Reserve Volume 1: 1913-1951 by Allan H. Meltzer, with a Foreword by Alan Greenspan. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2003. pp. 800 + xiii, $75.00 by 1 David Laidler 1The author is Bank of Montreal Professor, in the Department of Economics at the University of Western Ontario. He gratefully acknowledges the Bank=s support of his work. John McMillan, Roger Sandilands and Richard Timberlake made helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 I Allan Meltzer refers to his History of the Federal Reserve as a biography of an institution, and so it is, in the same way that Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz=s Monetary History of the United States is the biography of a particular time series: both books deal with the Alife and times@ of their principal subject, with a strong emphasis on the Atimes@. This is the first of a projected two volume set, and covers the same period (roughly speaking) as chapters 5 - 11 of Friedman and Schwartz=s study. Because, however, Meltzer emphasises the economic ideas, institutional factors, and personalities that drove monetary policy over his period, while they stressed the effects of that policy on the behaviour of the money supply, and by that route on the economy, the two works are more complements than substitutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Banking, Business, and Finance
    Banking, Business, and Finance Bernard Quaritch Ltd MMXX BERNARD QUARITCH LTD 36 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON, WC1R 4JH Tel: +44 (0)20 7297 4888 Fax: +44 (0)20 7297 4866 e-mail: [email protected] Web: www.quaritch.com Bankers: Barclays Bank PLC 1 Churchill Place London E14 5HP Sort code: 20-65-90 Account number: 10511722 Swift code: BUKBGB22 Sterling account: IBAN: GB71 BUKB 2065 9010 5117 22 U.S. Dollar account: IBAN: GB19 BUKB 2065 9063 9924 44 Euro account: IBAN: GB03 BUKB 2065 9045 4470 11 VAT number: GB 322 454 331 Introduction We hope you will enjoy this selection of 35 items from our stock, broadly on the theme of Banking, Business, and Finance. Arranged in chronological order, they span four centuries, from 1561 to 1966. Many are offered here at substantially discounted prices. John Law, from no. 9 JUST PRICE 1. VENUSTI, Antonio Maria. Compendio utilissimo di quelle cose, le quali a nobili e christiani mercanti appartengono. Milan, Giovan Antonio de gli Antonij, 1561. 8vo, ff. 15, [1], 32, 127, [1]; loss at foot of title (not touching text, neatly repaired), some damp staining to lower margins, foxing to some pages; a good copy in early eighteenth-century stiff vellum, flat spine with red morocco lettering-piece; spine cracked but repaired, a little marked; early ownership inscriptions to title, including the date 1717. £1250 First edition, rare on the market, containing Discorso d’intorno alla Mercantia and Trattato del Cambio di Lione o di Bisenzone and Trattato de’ Cambi, and including the Italian translation of Saravia de la Calle’s Institutione de’ Mercanti.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructing a Myth That Ricardo Was the Father of the Ricardian Model of International Trade: a Reconsideration of Torrens C
    Constructing a Myth that Ricardo Was the Father of the Ricardian Model of International Trade: A Reconsideration of Torrens’ Principles of Comparative Advantage and Gain-from-trade Taro Hisamatsu September 2016 Discussion Paper No.1630 GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS KOBE UNIVERSITY ROKKO, KOBE, JAPAN Torrens’ Principles of Comparative Advantage and Gain-from-trade 1 Constructing a Myth that Ricardo Was the was resolutely opposed by Jacob Hollander (1910) Father of the Ricardian Model of who held the view that it was Ricardo’s discovery. A International Trade: controversy ensued in The Economic Journal, one of A Reconsideration of Torrens’ Principles of the most authoritative publications in the field of Comparative Advantage and economics (Seligman and Hollander 1911). Gain-from-trade† Seligman’s claim gained the support of later distinguished economists, such Gottfried Haberler Taro Hisamatsu (1933), Jacob Viner (1937), Joseph Schumpeter (1954), Lionel Robbins (1958), John Chipman (1965), Paul Samuelson (1969), Douglas Irwin (1996), Marry Abstract Kemp, and Masayuki Okawa (2006), not to mention Historians of economic thought have often pointed out Roy Ruffin (2002; 2005), who insisted on “debunking that Ricardo’s famous England-Portugal model differs a myth” of Torrens’ 1815 anticipation and declared from the “Ricardian model” presented in modern Ricardo’s 1816 discovery. Ruffin was overwhelmingly international economics textbooks. This paper argues in favor of the view that what Torrens described in that the erroneous belief that David Ricardo was the 1815 was the concept of absolute advantage.2 father of the Ricardian model might have arisen from “The myth,” Ruffin (2005, 711) wrote, “was started Robert Torrens’ own explanations of comparative by Torrens himself in 1826 [in the third edition of advantage and his repeated claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional Economists and Policymaking in the United States, 1880-1929
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: IRRELEVANT GENIUS: PROFESSIONAL ECONOMISTS AND POLICYMAKING IN THE UNITED STATES, 1880-1929 Jonathan S. Franklin, Doctor of Philosophy, 2014 Dissertation Directed By: Professor David B. Sicilia, Department of History The rapid establishment and expansion of economics departments in colleges across the United State in the late nineteenth century indicates a significant shift in the way Americans understood economic science and its importance to federal economic policy. This dissertation addresses that phenomenon by explaining how American economists professionalized; and how that process influenced economic policymaking in the U.S. from the formation of the American Economic Association in 1885 to the Great Depression of the 1930s. Chapters alternate between analyzing the dilemmas economists faced while crafting a distinct academic discipline and investing early professional economists’ role in the federal economic policymaking process. Three emerging themes help explain the consistent failure of early U.S. economists to translate modern economic theory to economic policy in a timely fashion. First, public skepticism and the persistence of folk economics proved to be a powerful deterrent to professionally-trained economists’ authority in debates over policy matters. The combination of democratic idealism, populist politics, and skepticism regarding the motivations of professionally-trained economists undercut much of the social prestige professional economists garnered as educated elites. Second, disagreement among professional economists, often brought on by young economists’ efforts to overturn a century’s worth of received wisdom in classical economic theory, fostered considerable dissent within the field. Dissent, in turn, undermined the authority of professional economists and often led to doubt regarding economists’ abilities among the public and policy compromises that failed to solve economic problems.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Round of the Bullionist Debate 1800-1802: Boyd, Baring and Thornton’S Innovative Ideas
    THE EARLY ROUND OF THE BULLIONIST DEBATE 1800-1802: BOYD, BARING AND THORNTON’S INNOVATIVE IDEAS Arie Arnon Discussion Paper No. 07-14 October 2007 Monaster Center for Economic Research Ben-Gurion University of the Negev P.O. Box 653 Beer Sheva, Israel Fax: 972-8-6472941 Tel: 972-8-6472286 August 26, 2007 Not to be Quoted Comments Welcome The Early Round of the Bullionist Debate 1800-1802: Boyd, Baring and Thornton’s Innovative Ideas * Arie Arnon ** © * An earlier draft of the paper was presented at the 34 th Annual Meeting of the History of Economics Society, June, 2007 at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia. I would like to thank David Levy for his discussion and Neil Skaggs and other participants for their helpful comments. The paper has been written while I was visiting ILER at UC Berkeley. I thank the Institute for its hospitality and intellectual environment. The following paper is based on ongoing work towards a monograph provisionally titled: Money, Credit and the Economy: Studies in the History of Monetary Theory from Smith to Wicksell. ** Department of Economics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, and Economics & Society Program, Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. Currently on sabbatical at UC Berkeley, CA, emails: [email protected] or [email protected] Abstract The Restriction period, which began in England in 1797, marked a crucial turning point for both monetary theory and policy. The debates during the Restriction concerning the complicated relationship between inflation, the exchanges and monetary aggregates came to be known as the Bullionist Debate . The Bullionists were critical of the Bank of England and supported a return to convertibility, whereas the anti-Bullionists defended the Bank and were satisfied with the inconvertible system.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Great Depression
    America’s Great Depression Fifth Edition America’s Great Depression Fifth Edition Murray N. Rothbard MISES INSTITUTE Copyright © 1963, 1972 by Murray N. Rothbard Introduction to the Third Edition Copyright © 1975 by Murray N. Rothbard Introduction to the Fourth Edition Copyright © 1983 by Murray N. Rothbard Introduction to the Fifth Edition Copyright © 2000 by The Ludwig von Mises Institute Copyright © 2000 by The Ludwig von Mises Institute All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of reprints in the context of reviews. For information write The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 518 West Magnolia Avenue, Auburn, Alabama 36832. ISBN No.: 0-945466-05-6 TO JOEY, the indispensable framework The Ludwig von Mises Institute dedicates this volume to all of its generous donors, and in particular wishes to thank these Patrons: Dr. Gary G. Schlarbaum – George N. Gallagher (In Memoriam), Mary Jacob, Hugh E. Ledbetter – Mark M. Adamo, Lloyd Alaback, Robert Blumen, Philip G. Brumder, Anthony Deden (Sage Capital Management, Inc.), Mr. and Mrs. Willard Fischer, Larry R. Gies, Mr. and Mrs. W.R. Hogan, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. William W. Massey, Jr., Ellice McDonald, Jr., MBE, Rosa Hayward McDonald, MBE, Richard McInnis, Mr. and Mrs. Roger Milliken (Milliken and Company), James M. Rodney, Sheldon Rose, Mr. and Mrs. Edward Schoppe, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Robert E. Urie, Dr. Thomas L. Wenck – Algernon Land Co., L.L.C., J. Terry Anderson (Anderson Chemical Company), G. Douglas Collins, Jr., George Crispin, Lee A.
    [Show full text]
  • Adam Smith's Theory of Demo-Economic Development
    Population growth, the settlement process and economic progress : Adam Smith’s theory of demo-economic development Jérôme Lange To cite this version: Jérôme Lange. Population growth, the settlement process and economic progress : Adam Smith’s theory of demo-economic development. Economics and Finance. Université Panthéon-Sorbonne - Paris I, 2017. English. NNT : 2017PA01E039. tel-02275782 HAL Id: tel-02275782 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02275782 Submitted on 2 Sep 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. École d’Économie de la Sorbonne / Sorbonne School of Economics Laboratoire de rattachement : PHARE THÈSE pour l’obtention du titre de Docteur en Économie présentée et soutenue publiquement le 13 décembre 2017 par Jérôme Lange Population Growth, the Settlement Process and Economic Progress Adam Smith's Theory of Demo-Economic Development Sous la direction de Monsieur le Professeur André Lapidus, Université Paris 1 - Panthéon-Sorbonne Membres du Jury Monsieur le Professeur Daniel Diatkine, Université d'Évry-Val-d’Essonne Monsieur le Professeur Spencer Pack, Connecticut College, États-Unis Madame la Professeure Nathalie Sigot, Université Paris 1 - Panthéon Sorbonne Madame Christine Théré, Directrice de recherche à l’Institut National d’Études Démographiques Monsieur le Professeur Richard Van den Berg, Kingston University, Royaume-Uni L’Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne n'entend donner aucune approbation ni improbation aux opinions émises dans cette thèse ; ces opinions doivent être considérées comme propres à leur auteur.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Money and Banking in the US Rothbard
    AHISTORY OF MONEY AND BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES: THE COLONIAL ERA TO WORLD WAR II The Ludwig von Mises Institute dedicates this volume to all of its generous donors and wishes to thank these Patrons, in particular: George W. Connell [ James L. Bailey, James Bailey Foundation; Robert Blumen; Christopher P. Condon; John William Galbraith; Hugh E. Ledbetter; Frederick L. Maier; Mr. and Mrs. R. Nelson Nash [ Richard Bleiberg; John Hamilton Bolstad; Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Bost; Mr. and Mrs. Willard Fischer; Douglas E. French; Albert L. Hillman, Jr.; L. Charles Hilton, Jr.; Mr. and Mrs. Truman Johnson; Neil Kaethler; Robert Kealiher; Dr. Preston W. Keith; David Kramer; Mr. and Mrs. William W. Massey, Jr.; Hall McAdams; Dr. Dorothy Donnelley Moller; Francis Powers, M.D.; Donald Mosby Rembert; James M. Rodney; Joseph P. Schirrick; James Whitaker, M.D. [ J. Terry Anderson, Anderson Chemical Company; Mr. and Mrs. Ross K. Anderson; Toby O. Baxendale; Robert Bero; Dr. V.S. Boddicker; Dr. John Brätland; John Cooke; Carl Creager; Capt. and Mrs. Maino des Granges; Clyde Evans, Evans Cabinet Corporation; Elton B. Fox, The Fox Foundation; James W. Frevert; Larry R. Gies; Frank W. Heemstra; Donald L. Ifland; Dr. and Mrs. John W. Johnson; Richard J. Kossmann, M.D.; Alfonso Landa; John Leger; Arthur L. Loeb; Ronald Mandle; Ellice McDonald, Jr., CBE, and Rosa Hayward McDonald, CBE; Norbert McLuckie; In honor of Mikaelah S. Medrano; Joseph Edward Paul Melville; Dr. and Mrs. Donald Miller; Reed W. Mower; Terence Murphree, United Steel Structures; James O’Neill; Victor Pankey; Catherine Dixon Roland; John Salvador; Conrad Schneiker; Mark M.
    [Show full text]
  • By Alessandro Roncaglia1 1. the Mainstream View
    1 Should the history of economic thought be included in undergraduate curricula? by Alessandro Roncaglia1 1. The mainstream view “Economic theory […] finds no necessity for including its history as a part of professional training”. In the decades since Gordon (1965, pp. 126) stated this view, it has remained a mainstream tenet. It was already a mainstream tenet thirty years earlier, in the 1930s, when economists belonging to the then dominant Marshallian tradition such as John Hicks and Dennis Robertson argued that there was no point in wasting time reading the classical economists.2 (Later, after the Sraffian Revolution and in opposition to it, Hicks began to refer to classical economists in his writings, but some mistakes appear to confirm his earlier attitude).3 According to Gordon, history of economic thought is not useless since it can help students in gradually scaling the heights of economic theory, but it remains a detour in comparison with direct perusal of contemporary economic theory. From this point of view, we may add, HET’s pedagogical usefulness is reduced whenever there is discontinuity in the development of the analytical toolbox with no change in the underlying worldview, as in fact happened after the Second World War with the publication of Samuelson’s Foundations (1947). Of course, this does not mean that specialists should not be allowed to devote themselves to it: as with other cultural ventures, “we study history because it is there” (Gordon, ibid). And there is a subtle justification for inserting it in graduate economic curricula (a justification now apparently overlooked, since HET rarely gets a look in even there), which we may derive from one of the leading mainstream scholars in the field: Jacob Viner.
    [Show full text]
  • Piero Sraffa's Political Economy
    Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy A centenary estimate Edited by Terenzio Cozzi and Roberto Marchionatti London and New York Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy Piero Sraffa’s work has had a significant impact on the study of economics in the twentieth century. This book presents a centenary assessment of his work by leading academics in the history of economic thought. Contributions from a wide range of Sraffa scholars are brought together to evaluate Sraffa’s overall contribution to economics as well as selected aspects of Sraffa’s biography. His Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities—still a source of extensive international academic debate—and Sraffa’s edition of Ricardo’s Work and Correspondence are examined. Piero Sraffa’s Political Economy is divided into four parts. Part I looks at Sraffa’s biography during the first three decades of the century. Part II is dedicated to Sraffa’s work between the middle of the 1920s and the early 1930s—the criticism of Marshallian orthodoxy, the contributions to the Cambridge debates on imperfect competition and Keynes’ monetary work. Part III considers the relationship between the articles of the 1920s and the subsequent work leading to the publication of Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Part IV looks in detail at Keynes’ General Theory; Sraffa’s relationship with mathematicians; the controversy and critical influence on Hayek; Sraffa’s 1960 model and open economy. Terenzio Cozzi is Professor of Economics at the University of Torino, Italy. He is also Professor of Money and Finance, Coripe Master of Economics, Torino. He has previously authored Teoria dello sviluppo economico, and Elementi di economia politica: Un testo europeo (with S.Zamagni), and has published essays and articles in the fields of macroeconomics, growth and cycles, and Keynesian economics.
    [Show full text]