------------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
Published by EH.NET (October 2006)
Massimo M. Augello and Marco E.L. Guidi, editors, _Economists in
Parliament in the Liberal Age (1848-1920)_. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate,
2005. xviii + 315 pp. $100/�55 (cloth), ISBN: 0-7546-3965-7.
Reviewed for EH.NET by Vincent Barnett, Centre for Russian and East
European Studies, Birmingham University.
This book is a major part of the results of a long-term project on
the academic institutionalization of economics as a discipline.
According to the editors, the period chosen for investigation --
1848-1920 -- represents a period of crucial change in the subject
under consideration, witnessing for example the spread of classical
economics and the founding of associations devoted to propagating
free trade ideas. In particular, they argue that classical economics
implied a precise program of institutional reforms aimed at
transforming the attitudes of government vis-a-vis economic
regulation. It also involved the spread of economic ideas and the
attempted enlightenment of public opinion on relevant topics. With
these particular points highlighted, the emphasis on the role and
effect of economists in parliament is explained as following
naturally from the themes that are selected for examination. In terms
of goals, the editors explain that their aim was to stimulate more
detailed research on the relationship between economics and politics
and on the consequences of the political commitments displayed by
economists.
One aspect of the book worthy of praise is the wide range of national
case-studies that forms the bulk of the book. Most are European
(Spain, Britain, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Greece and
France) but two are not (Japan and the U.S.). Each chapter is
brimming with detailed information about the particular economists
who played a role in their respective parliaments, which will be of
significant use to those investigating related issues in more detail.
For example, Roger Backhouse charts twenty-five economists who
entered the British parliament between 1848 and 1920, including
thirteen as Whigs and Liberals, three as Radicals and six as
Conservatives and Liberal-Unionists. Backhouse notes that, with the
exception of J.S. Mill, prominent theorists were conspicuous by their
absence in this area of activity. Explaining the observed decline in
the number of economists in the British parliament in the second half
of the nineteenth century, Backhouse cites the poor quality of raw
materials on the supply side, with few quality candidates passing
through the Cambridge route. Economic theory itself underwent
significant change, with the 'marginal revolution' coinciding with
increased emphasis on the investigation of individual behavior.
Backhouse concludes that the role of economists in Parliament was
greatest when political economy itself chimed with political and
religious arguments for desired economic policies such as free trade.
The introduction by the editors brings out various national contrasts
to good effect. Reading through the chapters, the contrast between
Britain and Germany is particularly striking, albeit not that
unexpected. As outlined by Harald Hagemann and Matthais Rosch,
prominent historical political economists in Germany like Bruno
Hildebrand were openly hostile to the British classical school, and
Hildebrand played a significant role in the foundation of
governmental statistical offices. However, in this chapter the reader
also learns that at the University of Munich, F.B.W. von Hermann laid
the foundations for a German brand of classical economics. Hermann
represented the electoral district of Munich in the Frankfurt
National Assembly. On a different plane of contrast, the chapter on
the American anomaly by Bradley Bateman asks why there were no
economists in the U.S. Congress in the nineteenth century (with the
single exception of F.A. Walker). Possible answers provided include
lack of interest and the dominance of a liberal 'stand back'
conception of the state. The chapter by the two editors (from the
University of Pisa) on the Italian case stresses the importance of
the political commitments of economists to their perceived roles in
parliament, and explores the idea of political economy as a 'science
of the statesman or legislator' that arose after Italian unification.
In general the importance of national context comes through in all
the case-studies that are presented.
In evaluation it is possible to say that this book is an excellent
contribution to understanding the role played by economists in the
parliaments of more developed countries. The scholarship is
impressive and the comparative approach yields many insights.
However, the book is weighted more towards the empirical documenting
of the topic, rather than an in-depth exploration of the influence of
currents of economic theory on the policies adopted within
governmental institutions. Hence historians of economics with a
penchant for the 'internal' history of the evolution of doctrines
might be a little disappointed. Similarly the relationship between
the political beliefs of economists and their economics is not fully
investigated on the intellectual plane, more in terms of tracing
policy links and party affiliations. But in terms of exploring the
context of the role of economists in the wider world, this book can
be recommended as a valuable contribution to the field.
Vincent Barnett is the author of _A History of Russian Economic
Thought_ (London: Routledge, 2005).
Copyright (c) 2006 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-529-2229).
Published by EH.Net (October 2006). All EH.Net reviews are archived
at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
-------------- FOOTER TO EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
EH.Net-Review mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.net-review
|
