SC > Trying to tie this back to translation of economic thought, there may well have been a lack of academic incentive, or a paucity of patient translators, but Europe and the East were both existentially distracted by other events in the 1930s and 40s.

I would be inclined to to take an opposite view.  I urge a quick look at say R H Tawney’s Wiki biography, and suggest WWI added a new urgency to his own work on economic history – leading for instance to his 1924 publication of three fattish volumes regarding(English) Tudor Economic Documents. Meanwhile Duyvendak's “The Book of Lord Shang” (1928) and Gale’s  “Salt and Iron Debate” (1931) added hugely important inter-war translations concerning Ancient Chinese Economic History.  (Anyone inclined towards historicist opinions perhaps ought to read Tawney’s texts on monopoly (England 1600 AD) alongside Gale’s (China 81 BC).  But in parts almost indistinguishable.)

Another war matter is even more directly relevant. Maverick served during WWI.  During WWII his brother entered war service, and LM left his university campus in order to run the family business for 3 years in the interim, planning to return to academic life afterwards.  To his regret his (Assistant Prof) position at UCLA was terminated due to this absence.  He took a position instead at SIU (Carbondale).  This is what Pound seems to refer to.  His publications thenceforward were to a significant extent “amateur” - that is to say - self financed.  

Since both Scott and Gabriel raise matters of Pound’s anti-Semitism, I will add a little on the perplexing complications surrounding that matter.  US judiciary seem to have realised Pound was a sincere but misguided man, and incarcerated him at St. Elizabeth’s psychiatric hospital where light touch management allowed him to run informal tutorials on poetry and economic history.  From there he importantly encouraged the reprinting of several of the works of Alexander del Mar on monetary history.  Del Mar had been proud of his Sephardic Jewish descent.  Aschheim and Tavlas revisited such matters yet again in 2004.  They approached six Economics Nobel laureates (as I recall) asking two questions.  Firstly, had del Mar been incorrectly excluded from proper academic recognition – I believe all agreed he had.  Secondly, was that due to ideological or racial prejudice.  As I recall all suggested racial prejudice.  Personally, I differ.

This mail signals my fear that a multitude of matters (eg wars, fascism historicism and anti-Semitism) all might from time to time misdirect critical attention away for the correctly relevant questions in economics.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0176268003000764

Rob Tye