In Marshall's discussion of the optimal height of buildings he deftly points
out that a given floor space may be produced by shortening a tall building
while broadening its base, thus substituting land for capital. At the same
time, of course, the land complements the capital that rests on it. 

It would be hard to believe that Marshall was the first to perceive such a
simple and basic idea. One can almost always find earlier expositors by
searching long enough. Salamanca drew on Aquinas who drew on Aristotle and
so on back and back, while probably Chinese and Incan and Cambodian
temple-builders observed the same principles in their own times, places, and
languages.  The more important matter is, what does one do with the
knowledge once one finds it?

Mason Gaffney



-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Gilles CAMPAGNOLO
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Substitutes and Complements

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
> 
> 
> 
>   
> ***************************************************************
> ***************************************************************
>