================= HES POSTING ======================= 
 
[NOTE: Because there seems to be some interest in discussing the  
transition from political economy to economics, and some participants may 
not identify that thread from the original heading, I am now instituting a 
new subject header for this thread, as above. For the original message that 
started this thread, see Roy Davidson's message of 11 April, bearing the 
subject line "Re: HES: WWW -- Neoclassical/Henry George bibliography". -- 
RBE] 
 
Prof. Davidson, et al., 
With regard to the change in nomenclature, in the 2nd edition of Jevons'  
Theory of Political Economy, he writes in the preface of the "need" to  
change the name of the discipline from political economy to economics, 
though he (apparently) thought it ill-advised to actually do so in the  
title of his work. 
 
It appears that this suggested change stems from the changing thrust of  
the discipline itself which had begun prior to Jevons, but which is  
well-represented by Jevons and the whole of the "marginal revolution," in  
which a theoretical effort is made to develop general, universal laws  
that are independent of society, social structures, relations, etc. Or,  
following Knight (and I'm paraphrasing), "I do not know how we can talk  
sense about economics without considering the economic behavior of an  
isolated individual. Only in that way can we expect to get rid by  
abstraction of all the social relationships" (Intelligence and Democratic  
Action). 
 
Given the focus of this group away from the view of economic relations as  
part of a larger set of social relations (the "embeddedness" view?), it  
would seem almost natural, and certainly politic, to distance themselves  
from the previous "political economists," and the change in name would  
assist this enterprise. (Though, again, this changing focus had been set  
in motion by pre-Jevonian economists who continued to write under the old  
name.) 
 
Does this sound reasonable? 
 
John F. Henry 
California State Univ. -- Sacramento 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997, Roy Davidson wrote: 
 
> ================== HES POSTING ======================= 
>  
> Thanks for your link to Mason Gaffney's work on the corruption of 
> economics. Have read it previously and it would be useful to have the 
> bibliography. It would be interesting to analyze the transition from 
> <b>political economy</b> to <b>economics</b> about the turn of the 
century. 
> Ricardo's well known work PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY AND TAXATION  
was 
> followed  by a score of books  by Malthus, J.S. Mill, Fawcett, Rogers, 
> Laughlin, Ingram, Walker and many others all using titles such as 
"Outline 
> of Political Economy", "Principles of Political Economy", "History of 
> Political Economy",etc. Henry George's Science of Political Economy, 1897 
> was completed posthumously by his son. Alfred Marshall's Principles of 
> Economics circa 1890 was followed by a general use of this terminology 
> (economics) in the 20th Century. Could a gradual change in the definition 
> of the discipline explain the transition? 
>  
> [log in to unmask] (Roy Davidson) 
> ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
> For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 
>  
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]