SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gilles CAMPAGNOLO <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Gilles CAMPAGNOLO <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 11 May 2012 10:01:06 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (75 lines)
Dear all,

I cannot swear that Menger's was the earliest mention.

However, it is clear from his Library in the archives located at Hitotsubashi University in Japan, where I have worked a lot, that Menger had read Auspitz and Lieben's book (so, after his own Grundsaetze der Volkswirtschaftslehre naturally) and heavily annotated it, most often in a *negative* way, principally arguing that the use of maths cannot substitute for (what Menger judged a) lack of clarity in the conceptual exposition (Darstellung).

For more, I have written a few words on Menger on Auspitz and Lieben (albeit for a larger audience than SHOE list members) in my 2010 Routledge volume.

Best,
Gilles Campagnolo
Full research professor at French National Center for Scientific Research
A senior member of Aix-Marseilles School of Economics
A Long Term research fellow at the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science

> ----------------------------------------
> From: Torsten Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thu May 10 22:11:05 CEST 2012
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [SHOE] Substitutes and Complements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Might Menger?s (1871) discussion of ?complementäre Güter? be the earliest instance?  It seems he had no parallel terminology for substitutes, however.
> 
> The paring of terms is clearly present in Auspitz and Lieben (1889) who studied ?kompletirende und konkurrirende Artikel.?  It was their terminology that motivated Fisher?s (1892) ?competing and completing goods.?
> 
> Torsten Schmidt, UNH
> 
> 
> 
> From: Kevin Hoover 
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 1:12 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: [SHOE] Substitutes and Complements
> Can anyone point to the earliest account of the distinction between substitutes and complements -- conceptually, if not in those very words?
> 
> Kevin Hoover
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> **************************************************************
> KEVIN D. HOOVER
>   Professor of Economics and Philosophy
>   Duke University
>   Editor, History of Political Economy 
> 
> E-mail [log in to unmask]
> Webpage  www.econ.duke.edu/~kdh9/
> 
> Telephone (919) 660-1876
>  Fax (919) 684-8974
> 
> Economics:  primary mailing address
>   Department of Economics
>   213 Social Sciences Building
>   Box 90097
>   Duke University
>   Durham, North Carolina 27708-0097 
> 
> Philosophy
>   Department of Philosophy
>   201 West Duke Building
>   Duke University
>   Box 90743
>   Durham, North Carolina 27708-0743
> 
> 
> 
>   
> ***************************************************************
> ***************************************************************
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2