DOCSLIB.ORG

Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/30/2021 07:46:36AM Via Free Access

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/30/2021 07:46:36AM Via Free Access JOBNAME: EE3 Hodgson PAGE: 1 SESS: 5 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 27 12:20:19 2019 Introduction The Theory of Economics does not furnish a body of settled conclusions immediately applicable to policy. It is a method rather than a doctrine, an apparatus of the mind, a technique of thinking, which helps its possessor to draw correct conclusions. John Maynard Keynes (1922) The Great Financial Crash of 2008 had several effects, not only on the global economy, but also on global politics and economic policy. Post-crash austerity policies in several countries widened economic inequality and undermined welfare provision. Subsequent disillusionment with established politicians and parties fuelled populist movements of the right and left – all promoting relatively simple solutions to complex problems. In several countries the established political framework was challenged or even overturned. But few prominent economists budged in their opinions as a result of the Crash. A typical response was to defend the abstract model-building of mainstream economics but to explain the failure to predict the Crash in terms of losing ‘sight of the bigger picture’ and ‘a failure of the collective imagination of many bright people’ (Besley and Hennessy, 2009). The self-questioning rarely went any deeper than that. The preoccupation with technique over substance persisted. The consequences of this fixation include the overly-narrow and unrounded training of economists.1 Yet despite the inertia of their teachers, students objected in their thousands to the formalistic unreality of much teaching in mainstream economics. They formed organizations, mounted demonstrations, pushed for alternative curricula and published books (Moran et al., 2017; Fischer 1 The letter by Besley and Hennessy (2009) was a response to a question posed by Queen Elizabeth when she visited the London School of Economics in November 2008. She asked why no economist had predicted the Great Crash. The present author and nine other prominent economists sent a second letter to the Queen. It argued that the response by Besley and Hennessy had failed to note that economists are now largely trained in techniques and model building, and often lack the broader skills to deal with real world problems. ‘What has been scarce is a professional wisdom informed by a rich knowledge of psychology, institutional structures and historical precedents’ (Dow et al., 2009; Earl, 2010). 1 Geoffrey M. Hodgson - 9781789901597 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/30/2021 07:46:36AM via free access Columns Design XML Ltd / Job: Hodgson2-Is_there_a_future_for_heterodox_economics / Division: 00d-Introduction_GH /Pg. Position: 1 / Date: 13/6 JOBNAME: EE3 Hodgson PAGE: 2 SESS: 4 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 27 12:20:19 2019 2 Is there a future for heterodox economics? et al., 2018; Tielman et al., 2018). There were previous student revolts against mainstream economics (Fullbrook, 2003), but this one was bigger, globally-networked and more sustained. The dissident students turned to heterodox economics. Much heterodox thinking seems considerably more relevant than dry mathematics: it often engages with real-world problems. Networks of ageing heterodox econo- mists had survived since the 1970s, but they were fragmented and had been increasingly excluded from positions of influence. Frederic Lee, who was one of the foremost organizers of heterodoxy and its leading chronicler and historian, had shown that the heterodox movement had been in sustained retreat (Lee and Harley, 1997, 1998; Lee, 2009).2 The post-crash influx of students brought extra numbers and energy to heterodox economics. But there is no sign that its influence over economics as a whole, or its power within the academic discipline, have increased. Heterodoxy lacks a clear identity. Among the few things on which the heterodox community agree is the need for more pluralism in economics. It is widely argued that perspectives in addition to the reigning neoclassical approach should be taught on economics degrees. APPRAISING HETERODOX ECONOMICS AS A SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY This book considers the future of heterodox economics. But it is not principally a dissection of ideas. This book is an appraisal of neither Cambridge economics, post-Keynesian economics nor heterodox eco- nomics as bodies of thought. These streams of enquiry have made major contributions in several areas of the discipline, and often they have received too little recognition. For example, there are major insights in the areas of money and finance, in the methodology of economics, and in evolutionary economics. Yet these achievements have been insufficiently acknowledged by the mainstream. This shortfall cannot be explained by simply focusing on any theoret- ical or empirical flaws. The sources of limited success in these cases are to do with the social structures of science, as well as any ideological resistance. It is an often-repeated but inadequately-appreciated mantra 2 See Heise and Thieme (2016) for the decline of heterodox economics in Germany since the 1980s. For broader reflections see Backhouse (2000) and Coats (2001). Mearman et al. (2018) argued that the reform of the economics curriculum has made little progress after the 2008 Crash and it remains narrow and lacking in pluralism. Geoffrey M. Hodgson - 9781789901597 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/30/2021 07:46:36AM via free access Columns Design XML Ltd / Job: Hodgson2-Is_there_a_future_for_heterodox_economics / Division: 00d-Introduction_GH /Pg. Position: 2 / Date: 16/5 JOBNAME: EE3 Hodgson PAGE: 3 SESS: 4 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 27 12:20:19 2019 Introduction 3 that science is a social process. It consists of habits and practices that are structured within, and facilitated by, institutions (Dequech, 2017). It creates habits of thought and relations of power that help to determine its course of development. This book is about the institutions, culture and habits of thought that can enable or disable the forces of change within economics. It addresses the institutional contexts and drivers of scientific development in eco- nomics as an organized discipline. This book is about academic power and powerlessness. To understand academic power and inertia, philosophy and social science has been applied to the scientific study of science itself. There is the famous work by Thomas Kuhn (1970) and the massive sociological study by Randall Collins (1998). Some have argued that pluralism is insufficient for progress in science and it can even be pushed to excess (Polanyi, 1962; Kitcher, 1993). While some pluralism is vital, a degree of consensus is also required, to enable cumulative advance and to avoid endless, repeated discussion of everything. Such an accord, based on positions of authority and power within academia, is also necessary (while insufficient) for quality control – to limit the permeation of low-quality research. Despite major achievements in some areas, inadequate quality control has created severe reputational problems for heterodox scholarship. Poor quality control has cumulative effects. As well as lowering the bar for additional entrants, it diminishes reputation-based incentives to cite work or to take it seriously. In turn, this weakens mechanisms for cumulative advance on previous scholarship. Good publications are swamped by others of inferior quality. Bad quality demeans and drives out the good. Quality is also worsened by over-politicization of economics research. For example, if authors or referees are chosen or excluded because of their ideological alignments, rather than on the grounds of their expertise and scientific quality, then the calibre of published output suffers. In academic conversation, political tolerance and ideological pluralism are just as important as theoretical pluralism. A viewpoint diversity that engages varied political standpoints and promotes constructive dialogue is essential for the social sciences.3 3 The Heterodox Academy has been set up to promote viewpoint diversity (Hetero- dox Academy, 2019). Geoffrey M. Hodgson - 9781789901597 Downloaded from Elgar Online at 09/30/2021 07:46:36AM via free access Columns Design XML Ltd / Job: Hodgson2-Is_there_a_future_for_heterodox_economics / Division: 00d-Introduction_GH /Pg. Position: 3 / Date: 16/5 JOBNAME: EE3 Hodgson PAGE: 4 SESS: 6 OUTPUT: Thu Jun 27 12:20:19 2019 4 Is there a future for heterodox economics? This book addresses the failure of the heterodox community to establish sufficient consensus over core issues and to develop alternative positions of power within academia, especially after the loss of heterodox control of the Faculty of Economics and Politics in the University of Cambridge in the 1980s. The reasons for this failure are varied, and they involve external factors as well as intrinsic limitations. Whatever the reasons, Cambridge was a global high point of influence from which heterodoxy has never recovered, despite its increased number of adher- ents worldwide. Because of current global economic problems and the manifest limita- tions of mainstream economics, young scholars are attracted to hetero- doxy. But what reputational or other incentives are there for young economists to study heterodox economics, or for established economists to address and build upon heterodox insights? If we start asking such questions, then we set off on a track of enquiry that is different from the typical debates about the virtues and limitations of particular theories. Heterodox achievements have received insufficient attention and constructive development, largely
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Orthodox and Heterodox Economics in Recent Economic Methodology
    Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Volume 8, Issue 1, Spring 2015, pp. 61-81. http://ejpe.org/pdf/8-1-art-4.pdf Orthodox and heterodox economics in recent economic methodology D. WADE HANDS University of Puget Sound Abstract: This paper discusses the development of the field of economic methodology during the last few decades emphasizing the early influence of the “shelf” of Popperian philosophy and the division between neoclassical and heterodoX economics. It argues that the field of methodology has recently adopted a more naturalistic approach focusing primarily on the “new pluralist” subfields of experimental economics, behavioral economics, neuroeconomics, and related subjects. Keywords: orthodoX, heterodoX, neoclassical, economic theory, economic methodology JEL Classification: A12, B41, B49, B50 Myself when young did have ambition to contribute to the growth of social science. At the end, I am more interested in having less nonsense posing as knowledge (Frank Knight, 1956). At the time I was finishing graduate school, there was no real “field” of economic methodology. There were of course methodological writings by influential economists (e.g., Robbins 1932, 1952; Friedman 1953; Samuelson 1964, 1965), but these works were seldom of the same intellectual quality as the research that had made these economists famous as economists. There were also brief discussions of economics in influential books on the philosophy of science (e.g., Hempel 1965, AUTHOR’S NOTE: This paper began as a lecture delivered at the XVII Meeting on Epistemology of the Economic Sciences, School of Economic Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina, October 6-7, 2011. It was subsequently published in Perspectives on epistemology of economics: essays on methodology of economics (Lazzarini and Weisman 2012).
    [Show full text]
  • Keynesianism: Mainstream Economics Or Heterodox Economics?
    STUDIA EKONOMICZNE 1 ECONOMIC STUDIES NR 1 (LXXXIV) 2015 Izabela Bludnik* KEYNESIANISM: MAINSTREAM ECONOMICS OR HETERODOX ECONOMICS? INTRODUCTION The broad area of ​​research commonly referred to as “Keynesianism” was estab- lished by the book entitled The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money published in 1936 by John Maynard Keynes (Keynes, 1936; Polish ed. 2003). It was hailed as revolutionary as it undermined the vision of the functioning of the world and the conduct of economic policy, which at the time had been estab- lished for over 100 years, and thus permanently changed the face of modern economics. But Keynesianism never created a homogeneous set of views. Con- ventionally, the term is synonymous with supporting state interventions as ensur- ing a higher degree of resource utilization. However, this statement is too general for it to be meaningful. Moreover, it ignores the existence of a serious divide within the Keynesianism resulting from the adoption of two completely different perspectives concerning the world functioning. The purpose of this paper is to compare those two Keynesian perspectives in the context of the separate areas of mainstream and heterodox economics. Given the role traditionally assigned to each of these alternative approaches, one group of ideas known as Keynesian is widely regarded as a major field for the discussion of economic problems, whilst the second one – even referred to using the same term – is consistently ignored in the academic literature. In accordance with the assumed objectives, the first part of the article briefly characterizes the concept of neoclassical economics and mainstream economics. Part two is devoted to the “old” neoclassical synthesis of the 1950s and 1960s, New Keynesianism and the * Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu, Katedra Makroekonomii i Badań nad Rozwojem ([email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Études Irlandaises, 34.2 | 2009, « Figures De L'intellectuel En Irlande » [En Ligne], Mis En Ligne Le 02 Février 2012, Consulté Le 22 Septembre 2020
    Études irlandaises 34.2 | 2009 Figures de l'intellectuel en Irlande Representations of the Intellectual in Ireland Maurice Goldring et Carle Bonafous-Murat (dir.) Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudesirlandaises/1456 DOI : 10.4000/etudesirlandaises.1456 ISSN : 2259-8863 Éditeur Presses universitaires de Caen Édition imprimée Date de publication : 30 septembre 2009 ISBN : 978-2-7535-0982-5 ISSN : 0183-973X Référence électronique Maurice Goldring et Carle Bonafous-Murat (dir.), Études irlandaises, 34.2 | 2009, « Figures de l'intellectuel en Irlande » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 02 février 2012, consulté le 22 septembre 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/etudesirlandaises/1456 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ etudesirlandaises.1456 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 22 septembre 2020. Études irlandaises est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International. 1 SOMMAIRE Introduction Maurice Goldring et Carle Bonafous-Murat Maurice Goldring et Carle Bonafous-Murat (éd.) Richard Lovell Edgeworth, or the paradoxes of a “philosophical” life Isabelle Bour A Panacea for the Nation : Berkeley’s Tar-water and Irish Domestic Development Scott Breuninger “Is that the word ?” Samuel Beckett and the Port-Royal Philosophy of Language Mélanie Foehn Aristotle’s concept of energeia in Autumn Journal by Louis MacNeice, poet, classics scholar and intellectual Mélanie White Emblems of his early adversity
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Francis Beaufort Papers Addenda
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8gm8cxr No online items Sir Francis Beaufort papers addenda Finding aid prepared by Gayle M. Richardson. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2016 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. Sir Francis Beaufort papers mssFBA 1-28 1 addenda Descriptive Summary Title: Sir Francis Beaufort papers addenda Dates: 1797-1858 Collection Number: mssFBA 1-28 Creator OR Collector: Beaufort, Francis, Sir, 1774-1857 Extent: 37 items in one box Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: Correspondence, documents, photographs, poems and wills relating to Sir Francis Beaufort, Maria Edgeworth and the Beaufort and Edgeworth families. Language of Material: The records are in English. Access Open to qualified researchers by prior application through the Reader Services Department. For more information, contact Reader Services. Publication Rights The Huntington Library does not require that researchers request permission to quote from or publish images of this material, nor does it charge fees for such activities. The responsibility for identifying the copyright holder, if there is one, and obtaining necessary permissions rests with the researcher. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Sir Francis Beaufort papers addenda, The Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Acquisition Information Purchased from Francis Beaufort-Palmer, June 4, 1971. Biographical Note Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort: hydrographer of the British Navy and member of the Royal Society, creator of the wind force scale and weather notation coding, and author of Karamania, or, A brief description of the south coast of Asia-Minor and of the remains of antiquity (1817).
    [Show full text]
  • Here with Permission
    Heterodox Economics Newsletter WHO'S AFRAID OF JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES? CHALLENGING ECONOMIC GOVERNANCE IN AN AGE OF GROWING INEQUALITY, by Paul Davidson, Palgrave-MacMillan: 2017, pp. 162; ISBN 978-3- 319-64502-2. Reviewed by James K. Galbraith1 Originally appearing in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, this review is reprinted here with permission. Paul Davidson, in his ninth decade, has produced a crisp and clear exegesis of essential Keynesian ideas and the critical failures of so-called mainstream economic thought. The most critical flaw lies in the treatment of time. Rooted in ancient ideas of equilibrium, harmony and social balance, mainstream economics treats the future as an extrapolation of the past, predictable except for random errors, which are called “risk.” This as Davidson insists is incurably incorrect; there is uncertainty and at any time financial markets are prone to collapse in a failed flight to safety, which drains liquidity and deprives both financial and physical assets of their market value. From this it follows that in the social sphere any model that projects the future from the past will fail from time to time. The models work so long as things do not change! As for change, for turning points, they nevertheless occur. And that those who believe most in the model will prepare the least and be hurt the worst. And yet, for the economy to function, “belief” in the model – at the least, conditional belief sufficient to motivate consumption and investment – appears essential. Without it, the private economy cannot prosper. Living in a house of cards is better than having no house at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Inflation Theory: a Critical Literature Review and a New Research Agenda
    Chapter 8 Inflation Theory: A Critical Literature Review and a New Research Agenda The social and economic upheavals associated with the collapse of the ‘golden age’ of capitalism stimulated important developments in the Marxian analyses of inflation.1,2 However, the interest of Marxian researchers in developing the insights of the 1970s and 1980s has declined sharply recently, along with their numbers and influence.3 This is largely due to the shift of the economic debate towards the mainstream, especially since the mid-1970s, the changing inter- ests some of the best-known non-mainstream researchers, and the long-term decline in inflation since the 1980s, which is often presented as one of the most remarkable achievements of the neoliberal (or neomonetarist) economic poli- cies (Arestis and Sawyer 1998). This essay claims that Marxian inflation theory deserves to be rediscovered, and investigated more fully, for three reasons. First, inflation poses an intrigu- ing theoretical challenge. Analyses inspired by the quantity theory of money usually have unacceptably weak foundations (especially perfect competition, full employment, and costless adjustment between static equilibria), while non-mainstream (especially Marxian) contributions are promising, but remain relatively undeveloped. Second, advances in the understanding of inflation can easily be extended to the study of deflation, and both are very important at this point in time (Moseley 1999). Third, inflation and conventional anti-inflation policies usually have high economic and social costs. They often lead to higher unemployment, lower real wages, higher rates of exploitation and to a shift the income distribution and the balance of social forces towards capital and, especially, towards financial interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Monetary Theory: a Marxist Critique
    Class, Race and Corporate Power Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 1 2019 Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Michael Roberts [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Roberts, Michael (2019) "Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique," Class, Race and Corporate Power: Vol. 7 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.7.1.008316 Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol7/iss1/1 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts, Sciences & Education at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Class, Race and Corporate Power by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Modern Monetary Theory: A Marxist Critique Abstract Compiled from a series of blog posts which can be found at "The Next Recession." Modern monetary theory (MMT) has become flavor of the time among many leftist economic views in recent years. MMT has some traction in the left as it appears to offer theoretical support for policies of fiscal spending funded yb central bank money and running up budget deficits and public debt without earf of crises – and thus backing policies of government spending on infrastructure projects, job creation and industry in direct contrast to neoliberal mainstream policies of austerity and minimal government intervention. Here I will offer my view on the worth of MMT and its policy implications for the labor movement. First, I’ll try and give broad outline to bring out the similarities and difference with Marx’s monetary theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Do Heterodox Economists Think They Are? Andrew Mearman Bristol
    Who do heterodox economists think they are? Andrew Mearman Bristol Business School University of the West of England BS16 1QY UK E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: This paper attempts to engage with the established debate on the nature of heterodox economics. However, it starts from the position that previous attempts to classify and identify heterodox economics have been biased towards a priori definition. The paper aims to inform the discussion of the nature of heterodoxy with some empirical analysis. The paper examines survey data collected from a small/medium-sized sample of AHE members on the core concepts in economics. The paper applies factor analysis to the data. It also applies principles of biological taxonomy, and thence cluster analysis to the problem. The paper finds that within the self-identified community of self-identified heterodox economists there is little agreement as to whether members are pluralist, or what their attitude is to the mainstream. Indeed, there is little agreement on any core concepts or principles. The paper argues that there is little structure to heterodox economics beyond that provided by pre-existing (or constituent) schools of thought. Based on this study, heterodox economics appears a complex web of interacting individuals and as a group is a fuzzy set. These results would lead us to question further strict distinctions between heterodox, mainstream and pluralist economists. Keywords: heterodox economics, survey, factor analysis, cluster analysis JEL classifications: B5, C19, C83 Copyright held. Do not quote or reproduce without prior consent of the author. Draft of July 2009 Who do heterodox economists think they are? 1 Introduction What is heterodox economics? The term is now established in the literature, arguably more firmly than at any other time.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Look at the Failure of Mainstream Economics
    Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 2 March 2021 A critical look at the failure of mainstream economics Joseph M. Dipoli Salem State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/globe Part of the Economics Commons, Education Commons, and the International Business Commons This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by the M3 Center at the University of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee at Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Global Business Insights by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University of South Florida. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Dipoli, J. M. (2021). A critical look at the failure of mainstream economics. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(1), 22-26. https://www.doi.org/10.5038/2640-6489.6.1.1073 Corresponding Author Joseph M. Dipoli, Department of Economics, Salem State University, 352 Lafayette Street Salem, MA 01970 Revisions Submission date: Apr. 12, 2019; 1st Revision: Sep. 20, 2020; 2nd Revision: Dec. 8, 2020; 3rd Revision: Feb. 27, 2021; Acceptance: Feb. 28, 2021 Dipoli: A critical look at the failure of mainstream economics A Critical Look at the Failure of Mainstream Economics Joseph M. Dipoli Department of Economy Salem State University [email protected] Book Review Foundations of real-world economics: What every economics student needs to know (2nd ed.), by John Komlos, New York, Routledge, 2019, 306 pp., $42.95 (Paperback), ISBN 9781138296541. Introduction Many people in the United States of America are dissatisfied with the outcomes of the economy and some are suggesting measures that seem socialistic.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cultural Circulation of Political Economy, Botany, and Natural Knowledge
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article Malthus and the Philanthropists, 1764–1859: The Cultural Circulation of Political Economy, Botany, and Natural Knowledge J. Marc MacDonald Department of History, University of Prince Edward Island, 550 University Avenue, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-902-569-4865 Academic Editor: Bryan L. Sykes Received: 16 July 2016; Accepted: 3 January 2017; Published: 10 January 2017 Abstract: Modernity does not possess a monopoly on mass incarceration, population fears, forced migration, famine, or climatic change. Indeed, contemporary and early modern concerns over these matters have extended interests in Thomas Malthus. Yet, despite extensive research on population issues, little work explicates the genesis of population knowledge production or how the process of intellectual transfer occurred during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This paper examines the Delessert network’s instrumental role in cultivating, curating, and circulating knowledge that popularized Malthusian population theory, including the theory’s constitutive elements of political economy, philanthropy, industry, agriculture, and botany. I show how deviant, nonconformist groups suffered forced migration for their political philosophy, particularly during the revolutionary 1790s, resulting in their imprisonment and migration to America. A consequence of these social shifts was the diffusion and dissemination of population theory—as a pursuit of scientific knowledge and exploration—across both sides of the Atlantic. By focusing on the Delesserts and their social network, I find that a byproduct of inter and intra continental migration among European elites was a knowledge exchange that stimulated Malthus’s thesis on population and Genevan Augustin Pyramus Candolle’s research on botany, ultimately culminating in Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection and human evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Sir Francis Beaufort Papers: Finding Aid
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf667nb1k7 No online items Sir Francis Beaufort Papers: Finding Aid Finding aid prepared by Huntington Library staff. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens Manuscripts Department The Huntington Library 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org © 2016 The Huntington Library. All rights reserved. Sir Francis Beaufort Papers: mssFB 1-1920 1 Finding Aid Overview of the Collection Title: Sir Francis Beaufort Papers Dates (inclusive): 1710-1953 Bulk dates: 1780-1890 Collection Number: mssFB 1-1920 Creator: Beaufort, Francis, Sir, 1774-1857. Extent: 2,143 pieces in 38 boxes. Repository: The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Manuscripts Department 1151 Oxford Road San Marino, California 91108 Phone: (626) 405-2191 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.huntington.org Abstract: This collection is comprised of three sets of distinct papers concerning members of the Beaufort, Edgeworth, and Larpent families. The bulk of the collection consists of the papers of Admiral Sir Francis Beaufort (1774-1857), hydrographer of the British Navy and member of the Royal Society, as well as papers of other members of the Beaufort family. Subject matter includes naval operations of the British Navy, particularly during the Napoleonic Wars; geography and hydrography; Irish affairs; the Royal Society and scientific affairs in England; and family affairs. In addition there are also papers of Beaufort's daughter Lady Strangford, Emily Ann Smythe (1826-1887), a travel writer and illustrator, and papers of English diplomat John James Larpent (1783-1860) and his family.
    [Show full text]
  • The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism Tae-Hee Jo, Lynne Chester, Carlo D'ippoliti
    This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 27 Sep 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism Tae-Hee Jo, Lynne Chester, Carlo D'Ippoliti The social surplus approach Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315707587.ch3 Nuno Ornelas Martins Published online on: 28 Jul 2017 How to cite :- Nuno Ornelas Martins. 28 Jul 2017, The social surplus approach from: The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics, Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism Routledge Accessed on: 27 Sep 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315707587.ch3 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or 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 publisher shall not be liable for an 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. 3 The social surplus approach Historical origins and present state Nuno Ornelas Martins Introduction For classical political economists, the social surplus is the part of production that is not necessary for the reproduction of the existing social system.
    [Show full text]