"'Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;
You will find I have told it you twice.
'Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,
If only I've stated it thrice."
-- Lewis Carroll in The Hunting of the Snark, 1876.(1)
The Theory in question has in fact been independently discovered
3 or 4 times over & must be true. Believe me.
-- W. S. Jevons in a letter to H. S. Foxwell, 1878.(2)
This innovation has been described by some economists as a purely analytic affair with no direct reference to practical questions. They argue that the new theory was ideologically neutral and congruous with any political position. Others have argued that the replacement of the labor theory of value by a subjective value theory was precipitated primarily by ideological motivations.(5) However, there is a general agreement that the diffusion and adoption of the theory was not immediate. Further, it is accepted that the theory was accorded a lukewarm reception when it was first introduced and that the transformation of the theory into orthodoxy was retarded until the end of the nineteenth century.(6)
As outlined by Hobson, the marginalism inherent to the subjective value theory was soon extended to production theory. (7) By the middle of the 1890s, amidst rapid professionalization of economic theorizing, Alfred Marshall brought to a close, within mainstream economics, the conflict between the utility and cost theories of value. He accomplished this by elaborating a theory in which the cost of production (the supply curve) and the utility theories (the demand curve) were component parts, each comparable to one blade of a pair of scissors. This Marshallian synthesis quickly gained the stature of orthodoxy and has survived practically unscathed as the foundation of neoclassical economics.(8)
Those who subscribe to the first outlook tend to have a teleological vision of the development of economic theory -- a vision, as it were, of steady and continuous progress towards superior theory.(10) Those who endorse the second point of view are clearly more willing to admit the historical specificity of economic theory. However, to them, the unfolding of mainstream economic theory is merely new apology replacing old apology which for one reason or an other has become untenable.(11)
The Robinsonian perspective encapsulates elements of both the above views but does not extend the analysis far enough. First of all, any understanding of economic theory as being partly a vehicle for the ruling ideology of the period must make explicit that the present era is that of capitalism. Once this fact has been established, the concept of scientific economic investigation within capitalism has to be deconstructed. What does it mean for mainstream economists to conduct scientific investigations of economic activity? It is apparent that the primary focus of theorizing is to help predict and manipulate the workings of the economy at both the micro and macro levels with the ultimate objective of providing the tools to manage capitalist society. Economics then becomes a body of theory designed to legitimize and manage capitalist society.
The focus of the argument must then shift to the issue of the obsolescence of well-entrenched economic theories and policies. What agent/force has the power to make these economic theories and policies impotent and outmoded? What is it in capitalist society that wreaks havoc amidst theoreticians and managers, precipitates an intellectual crisis and leads to the formulation and adoption of new theories? Inasmuch as capitalist society is a social relationship amongst classes, the answer must lie in the agency of either the capitalist or the working class or buried deep in the arcane inner logic of the system. To an autonomist marxist (12), the answer to this question is quite clear -- it is an aggressive and recalcitrant working class and its self-activity that ruptures the normal operations of capitalist society and propels it towards crisis. Hence, the development of economic theory, since the dawn of capitalism, must be read as a process by which new policies and theories designed to govern and justify capitalist society replace those which have been rendered passe in the dynamic of class struggle.
In this dissertation, I propose to explore the implications of this autonomist marxist analysis for the origins of neoclassical economics and the analysis will inform my research into the historical contingency that marked the genesis of this paradigm. Therefore, the specific research problem will be to ascertain if and how the articulation and adoption of the neoclassical framework can be traced back to the incessant struggles of the working class.
I read your book [on tank warfare], you bastard!
-- General George Patton, on the verge of defeating Rommel in North Africa, in the movie Patton.(14)
Firstly, the study will attempt to demonstrate that the genesis of neoclassical economic theory cannot be understood as a purely analytic affair that was a positive step in the unfolding of an objectively superior body of theory.
Secondly, the proposed dissertation will establish the degree of historical contingency that marked the production of neoclassical theory in its embryonic stages.
Thirdly, the study will examine and substantiate the extent to which the agency of the working class was a factor within the process wherein the old theories had become obsolete.
Fourthly, it will determine whether the new theories, as Marshall's above assertion might indicate, provided the appropriate tools and guidance to the capitalist class.(15)
Finally, the dissertation will not be a purely abstruse theoretical treatise. It will teach practical political lessons, insofar as it provides a methodology and an example of how to decipher the political ramifications and goals of bourgeois theory. By providing a methodology designed to grasp the political underpinnings of bourgeois theory it is hoped that the work will contribute to successful working class struggle.
Firstly, as already mentioned, the study will offer a methodology and an example of how to decipher the strategic element in bourgeois theory. Such a methodology is, obviously, tranferable to the present juncture in the class struggle. While capital, confronted by crisis, regroups and restructures, its theoreticians are hard at work developing new theories and strategic initiatives to guide this process. If the working class is to defeat these efforts, mere ideological critique is insufficient. It is imperative to fathom the strategic nature of the innovations in theory. Once the strategies, goals and vulnerabilities of the opponent are understood, we are less likely to be sidetracked by trite academic debates and the task of defeating that opponent becomes considerably less cumbersome. It is expected that the proposed dissertation will constitute a step towards this end.
Secondly, textbooks in economics at the introductory, intermediate and graduate levels generally present neoclassical economics as the only body of theory that is worthy of scholarly attention. Further, these texts take great pains to paint neoclassical economics as ideologically neutral and scientific. To a large extent, these texts are targeting a captive audience of students who do not have much influence in the choice of required textbooks. However, in recent years, students have been successful in compelling universities to offer courses of study in heterodox economics thereby challenging the hegemony of the neoclassical paradigm. A study of the political origins of neoclassical economics will expose the historical obscurantism of the textbooks and refute the claims contained therein. By doing so, the proposed dissertation will provide ammunition for those students and teachers who are actively attacking and undermining the authority of the above mentioned textbooks.
Finally, little scholarly work has been published on the origins of neoclassical economic thought, especially from a marxist perspective. Moreover, the works that have been published have tended to focus on the origins of marginalism and particularly utility theory. Consequently, the study will be a significant contribution to the literature on the subject. This point is merely asserted here but will be elaborated upon in the next section where the proposed dissertation will be situated and contextualized within the already existing literature on the subject.
Only through the illumination of the past is it possible to understand the meaning of the present.
-- Goethe
Most historians of economic thought who have addressed the genesis of neoclassical economics, be they bourgeois, radical or marxist, have confined their focus to the formal theory and have ignored history per se. Perhaps, one might argue, it is a misnomer to refer to them as historians. Be that as it may, a brief survey of the past scholarship on the issue is still instructive.
First, on this list is George Stigler. who believes "that all that is useful and valid in earlier work is present - in purer and more elegant form - in the modern theory."(18) Further, he defines the history of economic thought as "the study of earlier economics with a purpose other than the understanding of the workings of an economic system."(19) It is not surprising, then, that Stigler is persuaded that "economic theory advanced (emphasis added) rapidly in the 1870s."(20) He restricts his analysis to the adoption of the marginal utility theory which "was at hand for at least three-quarters of a century before it was accepted by the science." He argues that in the preceding period, the dominant purpose of economic theorizing was "to understand and influence public policy." However, by the end of the nineteenth century, economics had become an academic discipline which valued disengagement and placed "a special premium on generality." Utility theory satisfied these requirements and therefore came to be adopted by the profession at large.(21) Akin to Stigler is Frank Knight who explains the success of the marginalist theories in terms of the patent truth inherent to them.(22)
Joseph Schumpeter can also be situated in the above category although his analysis is infinitely more sophisticated and less teleological than those mentioned above. Schumpeter was convinced that "the Œnew' theories emerged as a purely analytic affair without reference to practical questions."(23) He welcomed the attempts by Lange and Dobb to argue like non-Marxists and cited this as evidence that "economic theory is a technique of reasoning" and "that such a technique is neutral by nature."(24) For Schumpeter, the path followed by Lange and Dobb was important and amounted to a concession, by those least inclined to do so, "of the existence of a piece of ground on which it was possible to build objectively scientific structures."(25) However, Schumpeter was not naive enough to believe that the sheer power of new ideas would inexorably lead to their adoption. He asserts that Jevons' message was "not more than a voice crying in a wilderness of dead wood" until Marshall's ability to construct a new school led economics "out of the valley on to a sunlit height."(26)
Richard Howey's contribution to the subject was a study of the rise of the marginal utility school. In that monograph, he sought to "temper many minor and a few major interpretations developed in other historical accounts."(27) It is a blow by blow account that destroys "the presumption that acceptance of the idea of marginal utility came quickly."(28)
Mark Blaug too, displays a certain amount of historical sophistication when he declares that much of the "debate over the so-called marginal revolution has in fact confused two quite different things: the explanation of the origins of the revolution, if revolution it was, and the explanation of its eventual triumph."(29) Having said so, he discounts several "classes" of arguments that seek to explain the origins of the marginal revolution as: "(1) an autonomous intellectual development within the discipline of economics; (2) the product of philosophical currents; (3) the product of definite institutional changes in the economy; and (4) a counterblast to socialism, particularly Marxism."(30) Except for the third "class" of argument, where the reference is to Nikolai Bukharin, Blaug is mostly unclear about whom he is attacking. As for the final "class", he asserts that, given the chronology of events, it is impossible to argue that the marginal utility theory was a response to Marx. He makes the point that the "first generation of economists" had no knowledge of Marx "in their formative years."(31) ** The point is well- taken, particularly since he later admits that "it was the rise of Marxism and Fabianism in the 1880s and 1890s that finally made subjective value theory socially and politically relevant; as the new economics began to furnish effective intellectual ammunition against Marx and Henry George."(32) However, Blaug chooses not to confront the historical problem of illuminating the process by which the new economics gained the stature of orthodoxy. In fact, Marshall's role in this process is, quite simply, ignored and Blaug's explication of the former's work is quickly transformed into mere technical elucidation.
Terence Hutchison's interpretation of Marshall's work is more critical and significantly less technical. He presents the reader with a tantalizing digression about the pioneers of marginal analysis having "to deal with the problems of monopoly, with obviously and sharply increasing returns, with heavy fixed and low variable costs,"(33) wherein the divergence between marginal and average revenue and marginal and average costs gain importance. Of course, Hutchison reifies these categories and overlooks their social significance. Moreover, as mentioned earlier, this discussion is merely parenthetical and does not constitute a satisfactory argument in itself.
The most recent reflections on the advent of the neoclassical age are those of John Maloney.(34) He provides the reader with a wealth of information about the state of political economy in Britain during the years 1885-1908. Maloney underscores Marshall's instrumental role in the emergence of neoclassical economics as the paradigm of choice amongst economists. He argues that Marshall's "first and paramount objective" was the creation of a specialized body of theory which, in due course, became inaccessible to the layman.(35) He further argues that these specialists "who announced their monopoly of occupational competence" were able to "secure, on the basis of their claims, the right to decide whom to train and not to train for the occupation, and in what to train them."(36) Neoclassical economics provided a research program that enabled such a metamorphosis while simultaneously being partly the result of it. Maloney's text is both a narration of Marshall's institutional maneuvering as well as an exegesis of his work and its implications for the future of economic theorizing.
One of the earliest of such critics was John Hobson. In discussing the "wide acceptance" won by Œmarginalism" in academic circles, Hobson opines that:
"Its [marginalism's] expositors are able to deduce from it practical precepts very acceptable to those politicians and business men who wish to show the injustice, the damage and the final futility of all attempts of the labouring classes, by the organised pressure of trade unionism or by politics, to get higher wages or other expensive improvements of the conditions of their employment.... If our political economists can bring this gospel of marginalism home to the hearts and heads of the working- classes, they will set aside all their foolish attempt to get higher wages out of rent and property and will set themselves to producing by harder, more skillful and more careful labour an enlarged product, the whole or part of which may come to them by the inevitable operation of the economic law of equal distribution at the margin!"(37)
Further, Hobson argues that the primary use of the new doctrine is "that it serves to dispose of the charge against capitalists of exploiting labour."(38) He proceeds to state that the "immanent conservatism" of the theory, recommends it, not only to timid academic minds, but to the general body of the possessing classes who, though they may be quite incapable of following its subtleties of reasoning, have sufficient intelligence to value its general conclusions as popularised by the press.(39)
Although Mark Blaug believes that Nikolai Bukharin attempted to deliver a broadside against the Œmarginalist revolution' as a whole,(40) a careful reading of Bukharin's text belies that argument. In fact, Bukharin is quite clear that the object of his criticism is the Austrian School which he is convinced was "the most powerful opponent of Marxism."(41) He recognizes differences between the Austrian School and those of Jevons, Walras and "the American school, headed by Clark," and does not treat them as a homogeneous mass.(42) Besides, he distinctly states that he is "delivering a criticism" of the new theory "as embodied in the person of Bohm-Bawerk."(43) Having said that, I must hasten to add that Bukharin's critique of the theory of the Austrian School is limited. He interprets the theory as a reflection of the social position of the rentier class, which was inclined to perceive the economy in terms of consumption rather than production. At any rate, the quarry of Bukharin's attack is different from that of the proposed dissertation.
Maurice Dobb is another marxist critic who has examined the history of economic thought. His contribution to the subject is a book entitled Theories of Value and Distribution Since Adam Smith: Ideology and Economic Theory. As the subtitle of the book might indicate, Dobb's primary emphasis is on the ideological nature of economic theory. Dobb notes that the "Jevonian Revolution" was associated with the drawing of different boundary-lines to the Œeconomic system', treated as an Œisolated system'; so that questions of property-ownership or class-relations and conflicts were regarded as falling outside the economist's domain, not directly affecting, in major respects at least, the phenomena and relations with which economic analysis was properly concerned, and belonging instead to the province of the economic historian or sociologist.(44)
Not unlike many bourgeois scholars, Dobb believes that the "Jevonian Revolution" amongst other things "resulted in enhanced precision and rigour of analysis" and that as a result, "economic analysis per se can be said to have measured an advance." However, he quickly adds that although the "cutting knives of economic discussion became sharper - whether they were used to cut so deeply is another matter." (45)
Ronald Meek, another marxist, attributes "the increasing popularity of the new type of analysis" to two factors. Firstly, he claims that "the basic problem of "scarcity" with which it [the new theory] was designed to deal actually began to emerge to prominence in the real world."46 Secondly, he claims that the new theory "was found to be particularly useful in connection with the task of opposing the labour theory of value - a task which became more and more urgent as marxist ideas began to grow in popularity."(47)
Similar charges are echoed by many other marxists and radicals including Guy Routh and E. K. Hunt. In addition to reiterating the second point made by Meek, Routh points out the gradual process by which the old theories were "exorcised" in "favour of something that would be as unlike Marx's doctrine as unlike could be." (48) He also furnishes a considerable amount of ammunition, to critics of bourgeois theory, by providing numerous examples of the anti-working class prejudices of Jevons, Walras and Menger.(49) E. K. Hunt also supplies similar ammunition.(50) Furthermore, Hunt argues that
"With the growth of the corporation as the principal form of industrialization and the growing industrial concentration.....there was an important change in both the nature of the accumulation of industrial capital and the role of the industrial capitalist.....Increasingly, corporate managers were hired to direct and oversee industrial enterprises.....[and] profits and interest came to be a result of passive ownership."(51)
Consequently, Hunt contends that capitalists "needed a theory that sanctioned their ownership and proclaimed the virtues of an exchange economy."(52) Although acknowledging that the labor theory of value perspective had equipped the capitalists with "serviceable insights into the process of capital accumulation" he assigns no such strategic merit to the new theories.(53)
Simon Clarke, on the other hand, recognizes the strategic worth of the new theories. He maintains that the context of the marginal revolution was the rapidly growing movement for social reform. The specific motivation for the development of a rigorous theory of price determination was the concern to be able to achieve some basis on which to evaluate proposed reforms.(54).....The marginalist model provided a standard against which reality could be measured. As such it provided a model that could theorise the possibilities of reform.(55)
Clarke presents a provocative thesis which is, in essence, a diversion from his primary focus. As a result, it is not accompanied by a detailed study of the rise of the new orthodoxy or by an attempt to substantiate the above claim.
Marx , in attempting to correct the fetishism inherent to the first chapter of Capital, observed that "commodities cannot themselves go to market" and that "we must, therefore, have recourse to their guardians."(57) A similar strategy becomes necessary if we are to explain how economic theories gain currency. After all, the mere enunciation of a theory does not inexorably lead to its adoption. In this context, it is my contention that the appropriate focus of study ought to be Alfred Marshall and his neoclassical synthesis and not the marginal utility theorists per se. For, it was Alfred Marshall who presided over the shift in paradigm and it was his synthesis that ultimately took root as a new orthodoxy.
Other limitations such as the prevalence of a type of manicheanism within the discourse, wherein the new theories are exalted as better science or quickly dismissed as pure ideology have already been addressed in detail in the section of this proposal that deals with the research problem. Suffice it to say that both sides in the debate have delivered egregious overstatements of their respective cases and that it is eminently possible for the new economic theory to be both Œideological' and Œscientific'. As I have stated earlier, economic theory legitimizes capitalist society and provides the tools to help manage it. Hence, the categories and theories of the new orthodoxy must have encapsulated apologetics as well as a genuine insights and conceptualizations, albeit from the standpoint of capital.
The following is a tentative outline of the proposed dissertation. It encompasses three major sections (II, III and IV). Upon further research, I expect that at least some of the subsections or combinations of subsections will evolve, develop and coalesce into chapters.
B. Economics and the Inversion of Class Perspective
-- The objective of this segment is to supply a detailed explanation of my methodology.
C. Motivation and Importance of Study
-- Here, I will furnish an explanation of what motivates my research and an argument for why I believe it to constitute an interesting and original contribution to knowledge.
D. Chapter Outline
-- As is self-evident, in this portion I will describe the basic structure of the dissertation.
B. Working Class Insurgency and the Demise of Absolute Surplus Value
-- Here, I intend to document how the working class was able to simultaneously exact higher wages and shorter working hours. Then, I will contend that these victories led to the obsolescence of the above strategy.
C. Labor Theory of Value and the Subversion of Economic Theory
-- In this segment, I will focus on how the labor theory of value had become a terrible weapon in the hands of Marx and others. It was transformed from a strategic insight in the hands of the theoreticians of capital into a frontal assault on capital.
D. Retraction of the Wages Fund Doctrine and the Crisis of the Labor Theory of Value
-- I will establish that the demise of the strategy of absolute surplus value and the concomitant subversion of the labor theory of value rendered classical political economy impotent and pushed it into crisis.
B. Oxford and the English Historical School
-- This part will explore the impact of the English Historical School and its interventions in the debate over the future of political economy.
C. Phillip Wicksteed and the Fabians
-- In this part, I will record and scrutinize Wicksteed's persistent attempts to convince the Fabian Socialists to abandon the labor theory of value.
D. Alfred Marshall and the Economics of Industry
-- This portion will examine and analyze Marshall's early attempts to grapple with the crisis in political economy.
B. Partial Equilibrium Analysis and Marshallian Management Theory
-- This portion will assess the usefulness of other aspects of the Marshallian synthesis (neoclassical economics) to the project of managing and justifying capitalist social relations.
C. Links to Other Strategies of Political Decomposition
-- I will delve into other bourgeois attempts (like Taylorism) to deal with the new balance of class power and the links between such attempts and neoclassical theory.
D. Alfred Marshall and the of Entrenchment of Neoclassical Economics
-- This segment will contain an investigation of Marshall's role in selling and imposing his synthesis as the only viable and acceptable vision of what academic economists could pursue.
B. Conclusions and Potential Avenues For Future Research
-- This portion will contain a discussion of the significance of my analysis and its implications for future research.
2. Jevons, William Stanley. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons. Vol. IV. Edited by R. D. Collison Black. London: Macmillan, 1977. p. 278.
3. Coats, A. W. "Retrospect and Prospect." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 603.
4. Ibid. Also see Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. p. 952.
5. For the former position see Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. p. 888, and Blaug, Mark. Economic Theory in Retrospect. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 302. For the latter position see Routh, Guy. The Origin of Economic Ideas. 2d ed. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Sheridan House, 1989. p. 218-31.
6. See Howey, Richard S. "The Origins of Marginalism" and Stigler, George J. "The Adoption of the Marginal Utility Theory." In Black, R. D. Collison, A. W. Coats, and Craufurd D. W. Goodwin, eds. The Marginal Revolution in Economics: Interpretation and Evaluation. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, .1973.
7. Hobson, J. A. Free-Thought in the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, 1926. pp. 91-130.
8 . Stigler amongst others acknowledges that the "theoretical corpus [of neoclassical economics] stems directly from Marshall." See Stigler, George J. Production and Distribution Theories: The Formative Period. New York: Macmillan, 1941. p. 8.
9. Robinson, Joan. Economic Philosophy. London: C. A. Watts & Co., 1962. p. 1.
** These categorizations are not exhaustive.
10. For example, see the work of Frank Knight and at times Mark Blaug.
11. For example see the work of E. K. Hunt or Guy Routh.
12. Autonomist marxism is a tendency within the marxist tradition that emphasizes the autonomy of the working class from capital and from the official organizations of the working class (such as unions and parties). This tendency also emphasizes the autonomy of different segments of the working class from each other. For a brief introduction to this tendency see the introduction in Cleaver, Harry. Reading Capital Politically. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979. Especially pp. 43-70.
13. Marshall, Alfred. The New Cambridge Curriculum in Economics and Associated Branches of Political Science: Its Purpose and Plan. London: Macmillan, 1903. p. 18.
14. Cite the movie! Quoted in Cleaver, Harry. Reading Capital Politically. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979. p. 42.
15. The applicability of neoclassical theory to the project of accumulation, be it capitalist or socialist (state capitalist), was explicitly recognized by some economists of the erstwhile Eastern Bloc. See Lange, Oskar. "Marxian Economics and Modern Economic Theory." Reprinted in Marx and Modern Economics. Edited by David Horowitz. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1968.
16. Vonnegut, Kurt. Cat's Cradle. New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1963. p. 124.
17 . Butterfield, Herbert. The Whig Interpretation of History. London: George Bell & Sons, 1931. p. ?.
18 . Stigler, George. "Does Economics Have a Useful Past?" In The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. p. 107.
19 . Ibid. p. 108.
20 . Stigler, George J. Production and Distribution Theories: The Formative Period. New York: Macmillan, 1941. p. 2.
21 . Stigler, George. "The Adoption of the Marginal Utility Theory." In The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. pp. 76-78.
22 . Knight, Frank. "Introduction." In Menger, Carl. Principles of Economics. Translated and edited by James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1950. pp. 12 - 13.
23 . Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. p. 888.
24 . Ibid. p. 884.
25 . Ibid.
26 . Ibid. p. 830.
27 . Howey, R. S. The Rise of the Marginal Utility School 1870-1889. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1960. Preface.
28 . Ibid.
29 . Blaug, Mark. Economic Theory in Retrospect. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 295.
30 . Ibid. p. 299.
31 . Ibid. p. 302.
** . This assertion is inaccurate inasmuch as it refers to Marshall. Marshall is explicit about having read Marx as early as 1870. See Maloney, John. Marshall, Orthodoxy and the Professionalization of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 49. Maloney cites a letter (which is a part of the Marshall Papers, Marshall Library, Cambridge) written by Marshall to an unidentified recipient on December 2, 1889 in which he so states.
32 . Ibid. p. 308.
33 . Hutchison, T. W. A Review of Economic Doctrines 1870-1929. London: Oxford University Press, 1953. p. 16.
34 . Maloney, John. Marshall, Orthodoxy and the Professionalization of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
35 . Ibid. p. 3.
36 . Ibid. p. 4.
37 . Hobson, J. A. Work and Wealth. New York: Macmillan, 1922. pp. 174-175.
38 . Hobson, J. A. Free-Thought in the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, 1926. p. 108.
39. Ibid.v 40 . Blaug, Mark. Economic Theory in Retrospect. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 301.v 41 . Bukharin, Nikolai. Economic Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972. p. 9.v 42 . Ibid. p. 34.
43 . Ibid.
44 . Dobb, Maurice. Theories of Value and Distribution Since Adam Smith: Ideology and Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. p. 172.
45 . Ibid. p. 176.
46 . Meek, Ronald L. Studies in the LaborTheory of Value. 2d ed. New York: Monthly Review Press. p. 249.
47 . Ibid.
48 . Routh, Guy. The Origin of Economic Ideas. 2d ed. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Sheridan House, 1989. p. 218.
49 . Ibid. pp. 218-282.
50 . Hunt, E. K. History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1979. pp. 236-270.
51 . Ibid. p. 269.
52 . Ibid.
53 . Ibid.
54 . Clarke, Simon. Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology: From Adam Smith to Max Weber. London: Macmillan, 1982. p. 150.
55 . Ibid. p. 165.
56 . Blaug, Mark. Economic Theory in Retrospect. 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. p. 305.
57 . Marx, Karl. Capital. Vol. I. Translated by Ben Fowkes. New York: Vintage, 1976. p. 178.
58 . Burns, Robert. Robert Burns: Selected Poems. Edited by Carol McGuirk. New York: Penguin Books, 1993. p. 68.
59 . Carroll, Lewis. The Collected Verse of Lewis Carroll. London: Macmillan, 1932. p. 4.
___. "Hume, Money and Civilization or Why Was Hume a Metallist?" Draft. Department of Philosophy, University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine. Photocopy.
___. "The Querist's Quizzical Currency." Draft. Department of Philosophy, University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine. Photocopy.
___. "Vision and Momentum: George Berkeley's Philosophy of Money." Draft. Department of Philosophy, University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine. Photocopy.
___. "Worm in the Blood: Spinoza and the Economic Life of 17th Century Holland." Draft. Department of Philosophy, University of Southern Maine, Portland, Maine. Photocopy.
___. "The Work/Energy Crisis and the Apocalypse." In Midnight Oil: Work, Energy, War, 1973-1992. Midnight Notes Collective. New York: Autonomedia, 1992. Reprinted from Midnight Notes 3, 1980.
Cleaver, Harry. Reading Capital Politically. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1979.
___. "The Inversion of Class Perspective in Marxian Theory: From Valorization to Self-Valorization." In Volume I of Open Marxism. 2 vols. Edited by Werner Bonefeld, Richard Gunn and Kosmas Psychopedis. London: Pluto Press, 1992.
___. "Supply Side Economics: The New Phase of Capitalist Strategy in the Crisis.". Department of Economics, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, 1981. Photocopy.
Keynes, John Maynard. "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill." In Essays in Persuasion. New York: W. W. Norton, 1963.
Marx, Karl. Capital. Vol. I. Translated by Ben Fowkes. New York: Vintage, 1976.
___. Texts on Method. Translated and edited by Terell Carver. New York: Barnes & Noble, ?????.
___. Theories of Surplus Value. 3 vols. Translated by Emile Burns. Edited by S. Ryazanskaya. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1963.
Negri, Toni. Revolution Retrieved: Selected Writings on Marx, Keynes, Capitalist Crisis and New Social Subjects 1967-83. London: Red Notes, 1988.
Tronti, Mario. "Workers and Capital." Telos, No. 14 (Winter 1972): 25-62.
___. Selected Essays on Political Economy. Translated by Seymour Cain. George B. de Huszar, ed. New York: Van Nostrand, 1964.
Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen. Capital and Interest: A Critical History of Economical Theory. Translated by William Smart. New York: Brentano's, 1922.
___. The Positive Theory of Capital. Translated by William Smart. 1891. Reprint. New York: G. E. Stechert & Co., 1930.
___. "The Austrian Economists." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science I (1891): 361-84.
Cairnes, J. E. The Character and Logical Method of Political Economy. London: Macmillan, 1875.
___. Essays in Political Economy. London: Macmillan, 1873.
___. Some Leading Principles of Political Economy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1874.
Clark, John Bates. The Distribution of Wealth: A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits. New York: Macmillan, 1938.
___. Essentials of Economic Theory. 1907. Reprint. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968.
___. The Philosophy of Wealth: Economic Principles Newly Formulated. 2d ed. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1904.
___. Social Justice Without Socialism. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914.
___. "The Modern Appeal to Legal Forces in Economic Life." Publications of the American Economic Association 9 (October and December 1894): 481-502.
___. "Possibility of a Scientific Law of Wages." Publications of the American Economic Association 4 (March 1889): 37-69.
___. "The Theory of Economic Progress." Economic Studies 1 (April 1896): 1-22.
___. "A Universal Law of Economic Variation." Quarterly Journal of Economics 8 (April 1894): 261-79.
Clark, John Bates and Franklin H. Giddings. The Modern Distributive Process. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1888.
Edgeworth, F. Y. Mathematical Psychics. London: C. Kegan Paul, 1881.
Fisher, Irving. Elementary Principles of Economics. New York: Macmillan, 1916.
___. Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925.
___. The Nature of Capital and Income. New York: Macmillan, 1906 Foxwell, H. S. "The Economic Movement in England." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2 (1887): 84-103.
Hobson, J. A. Free-Thought in the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, 1926.
___. The Industrial System: An Inquiry Into Earned and Unearned Income. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1909.
___. Work and Wealth. New York: Macmillan, 1922.
Ingram, John Kells. A History of Political Economy. 2d ed. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1910.
Jevons, W. Stanley. Methods of Social Reform. 1883. Reprint. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1965.
___. Money and the Mechanism of Exchange. 11th ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1896.
___. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons. 7 vols. Edited by R. D. Collison Black. London: Macmillan, 1972.
___. Primer of Political Economy. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1878.
___. The State in Relation to Labour. 4th ed. 1910. Reprint. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968.
___. The Theory of Political Economy. 4th ed. London: Macmillan, 1931.
___. "Brief Account of a General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London 29 (June 1866): 282-87.
___. "Economic Policy." In Essays in Economic Method. Edited by R. L. Smyth. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1963.
Leslie, T. E. Cliffe. Essays in Political Economy. 2d ed. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1888.
Marshall, Alfred. The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall. 2 vols. Edited by J. K. Whitaker. London: Macmillan Press, 1975.
___. Industry and Trade. London: Macmillan, 1919.
___. The New Cambridge Curriculum in Economics and Associated Branches of Political Science: Its Purpose and Plan. London: Macmillan, 1903.
___. Official Papers by Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillan, 1926.
___. A Plea for the Creation of a Curriculum in Economics and Associated Branches of Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902.
___. Principles of Economics. 8th ed. London: Macmillan, 1938.
___. Preface to Industrial Peace, by L. L. F. R. Price. London: Macmillan, 1887.
___. "The Old Generation of Economists and the New." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2 (January 1897): 115-35.
Marshall, Alfred and Mary Paley Marshall. The Economics of Industry. London: Macmillan, 1879.
Menger, Anton. The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour. Translated by M. E. Tanner. London: Macmillan, 1899.
Menger, Carl. Principles of Economics. Translated and edited by James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1950.
___. Investigations Into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics. Translated by Francis J. Nock. Edited by Louis Schneider. New York: New York University Press, 1985.
___. "On the Origin of Money." Translated by Caroline A. Foley. Economic Journal 2 (June 1892): 239-55.
Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy. New ed. 1909. Reprint. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969.
Pareto, Vilfredo. Manual of Political Economy. Translated by Ann S. Schwier. Edited by Ann S. Schwier and Alfred N. Page. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1971.
Pigou, A. C. Principles and Methods of Industrial Peace. London: Macmillan, 1905.
Proudhon, Pierre Joseph. System of Economical Contradictions: Or, The Philosophy of Misery. 1888. Reprint. Translated by Benj. R. Tucker. New York: Arno Press, 1972.
Senior, Nassau William. An Outline of the Science of Political Economy. The Library of Economics. New York: Farrar & Rinehart, 1939.
Sidgwick, Henry. The Scope and Method of Economic Science. London: Macmillan, 1885.
___. The Principles of Political Economy. 2d ed. London: Macmillan, 1887.
Veblen, Thorstein. "The Limitation of Marginal Utility." Journal of Political Economy 17 (1909): 620-36.
Walras, Leon. Elements of Pure Economics. Translated by William Jaffe. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1954.
___. Correspondence of Leon Walras and Related Papers. 3 vols. Edited by William Jaffe. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1965.
Wicksell, Knut. Lectures on Political Economy. 1934. Reprint. 2 vols. Translated by E. Classen. Edited by Lionel Robbins. Fairfield, New Jersey: Augustus M. Kelley, 1977.
___. Value, Capital, and Rent. Translated by S. H. Frowein. London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954.
Wicksteed, Philip H. The Alphabet of Economic Science. New York: Kelley & Millman, 1955.
___. The Common Sense of Political Economy and Selected Papers and Reviews on Economic Theory. 2 vols. Rev and enlarged ed. Edited by Lionel Robbins. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1933.
Catlin, Warren B. The Progress of Economics: A History of Economic Thought. New York: Bookman Associates, 1962.
Canterbery, E. Ray. The Making of Economics. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1976.
Deane, Phyllis. The State and the Economic System: An Introduction to the History of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Dobb, Maurice. Theories of Value and Distribution Since Adam Smith: Ideology and Economic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973.
Hunt, E. K. History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1979.
Mirowski, Philip. Against Mechanism: Protecting Economics From Science. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1988.
___. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Mitchell, Wesley C. Lecture Notes on Types of Economic Theory. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1949.
Lekachman, Robert. A History of Economic Ideas. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Oser, Jacob, and William C. Blanchfield. The Evolution of Economic Thought. 3d ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
Pagano, Ugo. Work and Welfare in Economic Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
Robinson, Joan. Economic Heresies. Reprint 1971. London: Macmillan, 1972.
Rogin, Leo. The Meaning and Validity of Economic Theory: A Historical Approach. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956.
Roll, Eric. A History of Economic Thought. 4th ed., rev. and enl. London: Faber & Faber, 1973.
Routh, Guy. The Origin of Economic Ideas. 2d ed. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Sheridan House, 1989.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954.
Screpanti, Ernesto and Stefano Zamagni. An Outline of the History of Economic Thought. Translated by David Field. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Spiegel, Henry William. The Growth of Economic Thought. 3d ed. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1991.
Black, R. D. Collison, A. W. Coats, and Craufurd D. W. Goodwin, eds. The Marginal Revolution in Economics: Interpretation and Evaluation. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1973.
Blaug, Mark. "Was There a Marginal Revolution?" History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 269-80.
Bukharin, Nikolai. Economic Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972.
Clarke, Simon. Marx, Marginalism and Modern Sociology: From Adam Smith to Max Weber. London: Macmillan, 1982.
Coats, A. W. "The Economic and Social Context of the Marginal Revolution of the 1870's." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 408-17.
___. "Retrospect and Prospect." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 603-31.
Dasgupta, A. K. "Marginalist Challenge." Chap 6 in Epochs of Economic Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
deMarchi, N. B. "Mill and Cairnes and the Emergence of Marginalism in England." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 344-78.
Fellner, William. Emergence and Content of Modern Economic Analysis. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960.
Fisher, Robert M. The Logic of Economic Discovery: Neoclassical economics and the Marginal Revolution. Brighton, Sussex: Wheatsheaf Books, 1986.
Fusfeld, Daniel R. "Neo-classical Economics And The Ideology Of Capitalism." Papers Of The Michigan Academy Of Science, Arts And Letters 43 (1958): 171-202.
Goodwin, Craufurd D. W. Goodwin. "Marginalism Moves to the New World." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 551-70.
Henderson, John P. "The Retarded Acceptance Of The Marginal Utility Theory: Comment" Quarterly Journal Of Economics 69 (August 1955): 465-73.
Howey, R. S. The Rise of the Marginal Utility School 1870-1889. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1960.
___. "The Origins of Marginalism." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 281-302.
Hutchison, T. W. A Review of Economic Doctrines 1870-1929. London: Oxford University Press, 1953.
___. "The Decline and Fall of English Political Economy and the Jevonian Revolution." Chap 3 in On Revolutions and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
___. "The Jevonian Revolution and Economic Policy in Britain." Chap 4 in On Revolutions and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
___. "The ŒMarginal Revolution' and the Decline and Fall of English Classical Political Economy." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 442-48.
Kauder, Emil. A History of Marginal Utility Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965.
___. "The Retarded Acceptance Of The Marginal Utility Theory." Quarterly Journal Of Economics 67 (November 1953): 564-75.
Knight, Frank H. "Marginal Utility Economics." In Essays in Economic Thought: Aristotle to Marshall. Reprinted from The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, 1931. Edited by Joseph J. Spengler and William R. Allan. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1960.
Meek, Ronald L. "Marginalism and Marxism." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 449-68.
Myrdal, Gunnar. "The Neo-classical Theory of Value." Chap 4 in The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory. Translated by Paul Streeten. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954.
Robinson, Joan. "The Neo-classics: Utility." Chap III in Economic Philosophy. London: C. A. Watts & Co., 1962.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. "The Historical School and the Theory of Marginal Utility." Chap IV in Economic Doctrine and Method. Translated by R. Aris. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.
Shackle, G. L. S. "Marginalism: The Harvest." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 587-602.
Spengler, Joseph J. "Exogenous and Endogenous Influences in the Formation of Post-1870 Economic Thought: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach." In Events, Ideology and Economic Theory: The Determinants of Progress in the Development of Economic Analysis. Compiled and edited by Robert V. Eagly. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1968.
___. "The Marginal Revolution and Concern with Economic Growth." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 469-511.
Stigler, George J. Production and Distribution Theories: The Formative Period. New York: Macmillan, 1941.
___. "The Adoption of the Marginal Utility Theory." Chap 7 in The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
___. "Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, and the Theory of Fabian Socialism." Chap 9 in Essays in the History of Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
___. "The Development of Utility Theory." Chap 5 in Essays in the History of Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
___. "Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated." Chap 8 in Essays in the History of Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Streissler, Eric. "To What Extent Was the Austrian School Marginalist?" History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 426-41.
Tarascio, Vincent J. Vilfredo Pareto and Marginalism." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 406-25.
___. "Jevons And Cairnes." Economica 27 (August 1960): 214-32.
___. "Jevons's Contribution to the Teaching of Political Economy in Manchester and London." Chap 6 in The Market for Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture, 1850-1905, edited by Alon Kadish and Keith Tribe. London: Routledge, 1993.
___. "W. S. Jevons and the Foundation of Modern Economics." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 364-78.
Checkland, S. G. "Economic Opinion In England As Jevons Found It." Manchester School 19 (May 1951): ??????.
Eckard, E. W. Economics of W. S. Jevons. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1940.
Hutchison, T. E. "The Politics and Philosophy in Jevons's Political Economy." Chap 6 in The Uses and Abuses of Economics. London: Routledge, 1994.
Keynes, John Maynard. "William Stanley Jevons." Journal Of Royal Statistical Society 99 (1936): ?????
LaNauze, J. A. "The Conception Of Jevons' Utility Theory." Economica 20 (1953): ???????
Mays, W. "Jevons' Conception Of Scientific Method." Manchester School 30 (September 1962): ??????
Robbins, Lionel. "The Place of Jevons in the History of Economic Thought." Chap 9 in The Evolution of Modern Economic Theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.
Robertson, Ross M. "Jevons And His Precursors." Econometrica 19 (July 1951):???????
Schabas, Margaret. A World Ruled by Number: William Stanley Jevons and the Rise of Mathematical Economics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1990.
Steedman, Ian. "Jevons's Theory of Capital and Interest." Manchester School (March 1972): ???????
Hayek, F. A. "Carl Menger." Economica 1 (November 1934): 393-420.
Hicks, J. R., and W. Weber, eds. Carl Menger and the Austrian School of Economics. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. "Carl Menger, 1840-1921." Chap 3 in Ten Great Economists: From Marx to Keynes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Stigler, George J. "The Economics of Carl Menger." Journal of Political Economy 45 (April 1937): 229-250.
Friedman, Milton. "Leon Walras and his Economic System." American Economic Review 45 (December 1955): 900-909.
Harrod, R. F. "Walras: A Re-Appraisal." Economic Journal 66 (June 1956): 307-16.
Jaffe, William. William Jaffe's Essays on Walras. Edited by Donald A. Walker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
___. "Leon Walras's Role in the ŒMarginal Revolution' of the 1870's." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 379-405.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. "Marie Esprit Leon Walras, 1834-1910." Chap 2 in Ten Great Economists: From Marx to Keynes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Tarascio, Vincent J. Pareto's Methodological Approach to Economics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1966.
Breit, William, and Roger L. Ransom. "Alfred Marshall: Exemplar of Neoclassical Economic Thought." Chap 3 in The Academic Scribblers. Rev. ed. Chicago: Dryden Press, 1982.
Checkland, S. G. "Marshall and the Wages-Wealth Paradox." Economic Journal 67 (June 1957): 330-33.
Dasgupta, A. K. "A Neo-Classical Synthesis: Alfred Marshall." Chap 7 in Epochs of Economic Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.
___. "An Aspect of Marshall's Period Analysis." Chap 10 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Davenport, H. J. The Economics of Alfred Marshall. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1935.
Guillebaud, C. W. "The Evolution of Marshall's Principles of Economics." Economic Journal 52 (December 1942): 330-49.
Hague, D. C. "Alfred Marshall and the Competitive Firm." Economic Journal 68 (December 1950): 673-90.
Hicks, J. R. "Edgeworth, Marshall, and the Indeterminateness of Wages." Economic Journal 40 (June 1930): 215-31.
___. "Marshall's Third Rule: A Further Comment." Oxford Economic Papers 13 (October 1961): 262-65.
Homan, Paul T. "Alfred Marshall." Chap 3 in Contemporary Economic Thought. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1928.
Kerr, Clark. Marshall, Marx and Modern Times: The Multi-Dimensional Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Keynes, John Maynard. "Alfred Marshall, 1842-1924." In Essays in Biography. New ed. with 3 additional essays. Edited by Geoffrey Keynes. London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1951.
Laidler, David E. W. "Alfred Marshall and the Development of Monetary Economics." Chap 3 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Loasby, Brian J. "Firms, Markets and the Principle of Continuity." Chap 5 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Matthews, Robin C. O. "Marshall and the Labour Market." Chap 2 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Maxwell, James A. "Some Marshallian Concepts, Especially the Representative Firm." Economic Journal 68 (December 1958): 691-98.
Newman, Peter. "The Great Barter Controversy." Chap 11 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
O'Brien, Denis P. "Marshall's Work in Relation to Classical Economics." Chap 6 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Parsons, Talcott. "Alfred Marshall: Wants and Activities and the Problem of the Scope of Economics." Chap 4 in The Structure of Social Action. Reprint, 1937. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1949.
___ "Economics and Sociology: Marshall in Relation to the Thought of His Time." Quarterly Journal of Economics 46 (February 1932): 316-47.
___. "Wants and Activities in Marshall." Quarterly Journal of Economics 46 (November 1931): 101-40.
Petridis, A. "Alfred Marshall's Attitudes to and Economic Analysis of Trade Unions: A Case of Anomalies in a Competitive System." History of Political Economy, Vol. 5, No. 1: 165-98.
Pigou, A. C. Alfred Marshall and Current Economic Thought. London: Macmillan, 1953.
Purcell, G. "Unity in the Thought of Alfred Marshall." Quarterly Journal of Economics 72 (November 1958): 588-600.
Reisman, David. Alfred Marshall: Progress and Politics. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987.
___. Alfred Marshall's Mission. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
___. The Economics of Alfred Marshall. London: Macmillan, 1986.
Robinson, Joan. Marx, Marshall and Keynes. New Delhi: Delhi School of Economics, 1955.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. "Alfred Marshall's Principles: A Semi-Centennial Appraisal." American Economic Review 31 (June 1941): 236-48.
___. "Alfred Marshall, 1842-1924." Chap 4 in Ten Great Economists: From Marx to Keynes. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.
Shove, G. F. "The Place of Marshall's Principles in the Development of Economic Theory." Economic Journal 52 (December 1942): 284-329.
Stigler, George J. "The Place of Marshall's Principles in the Development of Economics." Chap 1 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Taussig, F. W. "Alfred Marshall." Quarterly Journal of Economics 39 (November 1924): 1-14.
Tullberg, Rita McWilliams, ed. Alfred Marshall in Retrospect. Aldershot, Hants, England: Edward Elgar, 1990.
Viner, Jacob. "Marshall's Economics, in Relation to the Man and to His Times." American Economic Review 31 (June 1941): 223-235.
Whitaker, John K. "What Happened to the Second Volume of the Principle's? The Thorny Path to Marshall's Last Books." Chap 8 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Wolfe, J. N. "Marshall and the Trade Cycle." Oxford Economic Papers 8 (February 1956): 90-101.
Wood, John Cunningham, ed. Alfred Marshall: Critical Assessments. 4 vols. Beckenham, Kent, England: Croom Helm, 1982.
Hollander, Jacob H. "John Bates Clark as an Economist." Chap 1 in Economic Essays: Contributed in Honor of John Bates Clark, edited by Jacob H. Hollander. New York: Macmillan, 1927.
Homan, Paul T. "John Bates Clark." Chap 1 in Contemporary Economic Thought. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1928.
Knight, Frank H. and John Maurice Clark. "A Note on Professor Clark's Illustration of Marginal Productivity." Journal of Political Economy 33 (October 1925): 550-53.
Padan, R. S. "J. B. Clark's Formulae of Wages and Interest." Journal of Political Economy 9 (March 1901): 161-90.
Veblen, Thorstein. "Professor Clark's Economics." Quarterly Journal of Economics 22 (February 1908): 147-95.
Barber, William J. "The Fortunes of Political Economy in an Environment of Academic Conservatism: Yale University." Chap 6 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
___ "Political Economy and the Academic Setting Before 1900: An Introduction." Chap 1 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
___. "Political Economy in an Atmosphere of Academic Entrepreneurship: The University of Chicago." Chap 10 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
___. "Political Economy in the Flagship of Postgraduate Studies: The Johns Hopkins University." Chap 8 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
___. "Political Economy From the Top Down." Chap 4 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Checkland, S. G. "The Advent Of Academic Economics In England." Manchester School 19 (May 1951): 43-70.
Coats, A. W. "Alfred Marshall and the Early Development of the London School of Economics: Some Unpublished Letters." Economica 34 (November 1967): 408-17.
___. "The Educational Revolution and the Professionalization of American Economics." Chap 14 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Collard, David A. "Cambridge After Marshall." Chap 7 in Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall, edited by John K. Whitaker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Cookingham, Mary E. "Political Economy in the Far West: The University of California and Stanford University." Chap 11 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Dorfman, Joseph. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, Volume III. New York: Viking Press, 1949.
Fine, Sidney. Laissez Faire and the General-Welfare State: A Study of Conflict in American Thought 1865-1901. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1956.
Henderson, John P. "Political Economy and the Service of the State: The University of Wisconsin." Chap 13 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Hofstadter, Richard and Walter P. Metzger. The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955.
Jones, Byrd L. "A Quest for National Leadership: Institutionalization of Economics at Harvard." Chap 5 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Kadish, Alon. Historians, Economists and Economic History. London: Routledge, 1989.
___. The Oxford Economists in the Late Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.
___. "The City, the Fabians and the Foundation of the London School of Economics." Chap 8 in The Market for Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture, 1850-1905, edited by Alon Kadish and Keith Tribe. London: Routledge, 1993.
___. "Marshall and the Cambridge Economics Tripos." Chap 5 in The Market for Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture, 1850-1905, edited by Alon Kadish and Keith Tribe. London: Routledge, 1993.
___. "The Teaching of Political Economy in the Extension Movement: Cambridge, London and Oxford." Chap 3 in The Market for Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture, 1850-1905, edited by Alon Kadish and Keith Tribe. London: Routledge, 1993.
Maloney, John. Marshall, Orthodoxy and the Professionalization of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
___. "The Teaching of Political Economy in the University of London." Chap 1 in The Market for Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture, 1850-1905, edited by Alon Kadish and Keith Tribe. London: Routledge, 1993.
Matsuura, Tamotsu. "Marginalism in Japan." History of Political Economy 4 (1972): 533-50.
Reader, W. J. Professional Men: The Rise of the Professional Classes in Nineteenth-Century England. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1966.
Rozwadowski, Franek. "From Recitation Room to Research Seminar: Political Economy at Columbia University." Chap 7 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Sanderson, Michael. The Universities and British Industry 1850-1970. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1972.
Sass, Steven A. "An Uneasy Relationship: The Business Community and Academic Economists at the University of Pennsylvania." Chap 9 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Sugiyama, Chuhei and Hiroshi Mizuta, eds. Enlightenment and Beyond: Political Economy Comes to Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 1988.
Tribe, Keith. "Political Economy in the Northern Civic Universities." Chap 7 in The Market for Political Economy: The Advent of Economics in British University Culture, 1850-1905, edited by Alon Kadish and Keith Tribe. London: Routledge, 1993.
Whitaker, John K. "Early Flowering in the Old Dominion: Political Economy at the College of William and Mary and the University of Virginia." Chap 2 in Breaking the Academic Mould: Economists and American Higher Learning in the Nineteenth Century, edited by William J. Barber. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1988.
Wood, John Cunningham. British Economists and the Empire. London: Croom Helm, 1983.
Bagwell, Philip. "Transport." Chap 11 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Baines, D. E. "The Labour Supply and the Labour Market 1860-1914." Chap 7 in The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Volume 2: 1860 to the 1970s, edited by Roderick Floud and Donald McCloskey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Benson, John. ""Coalmining." Chap 9 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
___. "Work." Chap 3 in The Working Class in England 1875-1914, edited by John Benson. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
Brandes, Stuart D. American Welfare Capitalism 1880-1940. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
Brown, Kenneth D. "Trade Unions and the Law." Chap 6 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Burgess, Keith. The Origins of British Industrial Relations: The Nineteenth Century Experience. London: Croom Helm, 1975.
Checkland, Sydney. British Public Policy 1776-1939: An Economic, Social and Political Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Cochran, Thomas C. and William Miller. The Age of Enterprise: A Social History of Industrial America. Rev ed. New York: Harper & Row, 1961.
Cronin, James E. "Strikes 1870-1914." Chap 4 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Cross, Gary. A Quest for Time: The Reduction of Work in Britain and France, 1840-1940. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1989.
Davidson, Roger. "Government Administration." Chap 8 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Fitzgerald, Robert. British Labour Management and Industrial Welfare 1846-1939. London: Croom Helm, 1988.
Floud, R. C. "Britain 1860-1914: A survey." Chap 1 in The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Volume 2: 1860 to the 1970s, edited by Roderick Floud and Donald McCloskey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Ford, A. G. "The Trade Cycle in Britain 1860-1914." Chap 2 in The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Volume 2: 1860 to the 1970s, edited by Roderick Floud and Donald McCloskey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Garside, W. R. and H. F. Gospel. "Employers and Managers: Their Organizational Structure and Changing Industrial Strategies." Chap 5 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Gore, Van. "Rank-and-File Dissent." Chap 3 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Habakkuk, H. J. American and British Technology in the Nineteenth Century: The Search for Labour-Saving Inventions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962.
Haynes, M. J. "Strikes." Chap 4 in The Working Class in England 1875-1914, edited by John Benson. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
Hinton, James. "The Rise of a Mass Labour Movement: Growth and Limits." Chap 2 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Jones, Gareth Stedman. Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History 1832-1982. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Joyce, Patrick. Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class 1848-1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
___. Work, Society and Politics: The Culture of the Factory in Later Victorian England. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1980.
Kirk, Neville. Labour and Society in Britain and the USA.: Volume 2: Challenge and Accommodation, 1850-1939. Aldershot, Hants, England: Scolar Press, 1994.
Kirkland, Edward C. Dream and Thought in the Business Community, 1870-1900. 1956. Reprint. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964.
___. Industry Comes of Age: Business, Labor, and Public Policy 1860-1897. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961.
Lazonick, William. Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
___. Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.
McBriar, A. M. Fabian Socialism and English Politics 1884-1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966.
Porter, Jeffrey. "The Iron Trade." Chap 12 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Price, Richard. Labour in British Society: An Interpretative History. London: Croom Helm, 1986.
___. Masters, Unions and Men. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Roediger, David R. and Philip S. Foner. Our Own Time: A History of American Labor and the Working Day. New York: Verso, 1989.
Sandberg, L. G. "The Entrepreneur and Technological Change." Chap 5 in The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Volume 2: 1860 to the 1970s, edited by Roderick Floud and Donald McCloskey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Strassman, W. Paul. Risk and Technological Innovation: American Manufacturing Methods during the Nineteenth Century. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1959.
Thane, P. "Social History 1860-1914." Chap 9 in The Economic History of Britain since 1700, Volume 2: 1860 to the 1970s, edited by Roderick Floud and Donald McCloskey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
White, Joseph L. "Lancashire Cotton Textiles." Chap 10 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.
Woods, David. "Community Violence." Chap 6 in The Working Class in England 1875-1914, edited by John Benson. London: Croom Helm, 1985.
Wrigley, Chris. "The Government and Industrial Relations." Chap 7 in A History of British Industrial Relations 1875-1914, edited by Chris Wrigley. Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts Press, 1982.