================== 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]