=================== HES POSTING =======================
I wrote a brief section in my book, The End of Economics (Routledge,
1996) on the transition from political economic to economics:
A Brief History of the Concept of Economics
On a purely theoretical level, the call for an end of economics is not
particularly revolutionary. After all, the term, "economics," itself is
a relatively new term, coined in the late nineteenth century.
Previously, people who theorized about the economy called themselves
"political economists." The elimination of the word, "political," was
not trivial. Certainly, it seemed to be a matter of great importance at
the time to those who were intent on renaming the subject.
Towards the end of the late nineteenth century, academic political
economists were concerned that anybody who voiced a position about the
economy could deem herself or himself to be a political economist. As a
result, a group of academic political economists, led by Alfred Marshall
of Cambridge University, went to great lengths to reconstitute their
subject as economics.
Marshall was not the first economist to use the term, "economics," in
the title of a major treatise. Authors of lesser known works at the
time, such as those of J. M. Sturtevant (1877) and H. D. Macleod (1878),
has preceded him in this respect (see Arndt 1984). However, nobody
matched Marshall's obsession with reconstituting the subject as a
science.
Marshall deeply resented the fact that anybody could pretend to be
competent to carry on a conversation about political economy. This
problem came to a head in 1869, when Gladstone, by virtue of his
position as Prime Minister appointed Sir John Robert Seeley to the
Regius Professorship in Modern History. Seeley, who emphasized the
policy role of the chair, was convinced that political economy fell
within the scope of his subject (Groenewegen 1985).
How could a mere historian could aspire to speak about weighty matters
of political economy? Renaming the discipline, "economics," might help
to bar people such as Seeley from meddling in economic controversies.
Marshall hoped that, once political economy took on more scientific
pretensions, only those people who had undergone formal training in
economics would be deemed to be qualified to participate in debates over
economic questions.
Marshall and his wife, writing in their "Economics of Industryo
explained that they thought it better to drop "political" since
"political interests generally mean the interest of some part or parts
of the nation" rather than the nation as a whole (Marshall and Marshall
1879, p. 2). This stance allowed economists to dismiss anyone who
questioned their objectivity as being mistaken or representing some
nefarious special interest.
Marshall's interpretation of the notion of political economy is
misleading in two respects. To begin with, the term, "political
economy," had actually been intended to assert a community of
interests. Indeed, the term, "economy," without the modifier,
"political" had originally referred to parochial self-interest.
Before people began to write on political economy, an extensive body of
writing had developed on the subject of managing the economy of large
feudal estates (see Tribe 1978). The early political economists
consciously appended the word, "political," to suggest a broad extension
of the idea of economy. Where economy had previously concerned only the
rational management of a private household, the early political
economists widened the scope of economy to the polis -- the community as
a whole. Just as the early manuals could instruct estate managers how
to get the most production out of their land, political economy was
intended to guide national leaders in ruling their dominions.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 916-898-5321
E-Mail [log in to unmask]
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
