=================== HES POSTING ======================= I wrote a brief section in my book, The End of Economics (Routledge, 1996) on the transition from political economic to economics: A Brief History of the Concept of Economics On a purely theoretical level, the call for an end of economics is not particularly revolutionary. After all, the term, "economics," itself is a relatively new term, coined in the late nineteenth century. Previously, people who theorized about the economy called themselves "political economists." The elimination of the word, "political," was not trivial. Certainly, it seemed to be a matter of great importance at the time to those who were intent on renaming the subject. Towards the end of the late nineteenth century, academic political economists were concerned that anybody who voiced a position about the economy could deem herself or himself to be a political economist. As a result, a group of academic political economists, led by Alfred Marshall of Cambridge University, went to great lengths to reconstitute their subject as economics. Marshall was not the first economist to use the term, "economics," in the title of a major treatise. Authors of lesser known works at the time, such as those of J. M. Sturtevant (1877) and H. D. Macleod (1878), has preceded him in this respect (see Arndt 1984). However, nobody matched Marshall's obsession with reconstituting the subject as a science. Marshall deeply resented the fact that anybody could pretend to be competent to carry on a conversation about political economy. This problem came to a head in 1869, when Gladstone, by virtue of his position as Prime Minister appointed Sir John Robert Seeley to the Regius Professorship in Modern History. Seeley, who emphasized the policy role of the chair, was convinced that political economy fell within the scope of his subject (Groenewegen 1985). How could a mere historian could aspire to speak about weighty matters of political economy? Renaming the discipline, "economics," might help to bar people such as Seeley from meddling in economic controversies. Marshall hoped that, once political economy took on more scientific pretensions, only those people who had undergone formal training in economics would be deemed to be qualified to participate in debates over economic questions. Marshall and his wife, writing in their "Economics of Industryo explained that they thought it better to drop "political" since "political interests generally mean the interest of some part or parts of the nation" rather than the nation as a whole (Marshall and Marshall 1879, p. 2). This stance allowed economists to dismiss anyone who questioned their objectivity as being mistaken or representing some nefarious special interest. Marshall's interpretation of the notion of political economy is misleading in two respects. To begin with, the term, "political economy," had actually been intended to assert a community of interests. Indeed, the term, "economy," without the modifier, "political" had originally referred to parochial self-interest. Before people began to write on political economy, an extensive body of writing had developed on the subject of managing the economy of large feudal estates (see Tribe 1978). The early political economists consciously appended the word, "political," to suggest a broad extension of the idea of economy. Where economy had previously concerned only the rational management of a private household, the early political economists widened the scope of economy to the polis -- the community as a whole. Just as the early manuals could instruct estate managers how to get the most production out of their land, political economy was intended to guide national leaders in ruling their dominions. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [log in to unmask] ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]