================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Bruce Caldwell wrote: 
 
> [Taylor's] study of motivation would have been considered psychology. 
> The study of psychology was a rival to the study of (marginal) economic 
> theory. So his ideas would have been viewed as representing an 
> alternative to economics. (Or maybe even the study of something wholly 
> separate from economics.) 
 
> Today, with the emphasis of "mainstream" economics on questions of 
> information and incentives, he certainly could be viewed as an  
> empirical precursor of the principal-agent approach.  
 
Taylorism, if not Taylor (I know nothing re that historical matter), 
concerns *design of the best production process* (pace of work, detailed 
motions, etc) as well as *design of a system to induce/enforce the best* 
production process, where psychology and information & incentives are 
important.   
 
Taylorist time-and-motion study fits marginalist cost-minimization, but in 
what respect?  F.W. Taylor might say such study is "necessary empirical 
counterpart" to marginalist theory.  On the economic theorist's side, does 
"given a production function" presume that Taylor's work is done? 
 
----Paul 
 
Paul Wendt, Watertown MA 
asst.editor, HES e-information services (history of economics) 
e-contact, 19th century committee, SABR (baseball research) 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]