Constructing Economic Science

Author(s):  
Keith Tribe

Constructing Economic Science demonstrates how an existing public discourse, political economy, was transformed in the early twentieth century into a new university discipline: economics. This change in location brought about a restructuring of economic knowledge. Finance, student numbers, curricula, teaching, new media, and the demands of employment all played their part in shaping economics as it is known today. It was broadly accepted in the later nineteenth century that industrialising economies required the skilled and specialised workforce that universities could provide. Advocacy for the teaching of commercial subjects was widespread and international. In Cambridge, Alfred Marshall was alone in arguing that economics, not commerce, provided the most suitable training for the administration and business of the future; and in 1903 he founded the first three-year undergraduate economics programme. This was by no means the end of the story, however. What economics was, how Marshall thought it should be taught, had by the 1920s become contested, and in Britain the London School of Economics gained dominance in defining the new science. By the 1930s, American universities had already moved on from undergraduate to graduate teaching, whereas in Britain university education remained focussed upon undergraduate education. At the same time, public policy was reformulated in terms of economic means and ends—relating to postwar reconstruction, employment, and social welfare—and international economics became American economics. This study charts the conditions that initially shaped the “science” of economics, providing in turn a foundation for an understanding of the way in which this new language itself subsequently transformed public policy.

2021 ◽  
pp. 333-368
Author(s):  
Keith Tribe

Lionel Robbins was appointed head of the Department of Economics at the London School of Economics (LSE) in 1929 following the sudden death of Allyn Young, the incumbent professor. Young had not made any significant alteration to the teaching at LSE, but from the very first Robbins set about reorganising the profile of economics teaching. The framework within which he did this was one of a ‘science’ based upon ‘economic principles’, and in 1932 his Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science provided the methodological template for his project. This work appears to owe a great deal to Austrian economics, but it can be demonstrated that this was indirect, chiefly through the work of Wicksteed and Wicksell, hence reflecting economics where it had stood in the 1880s. Nonetheless, Robbins was successful in repackaging this work, and his Essay stimulated the development of discussions of economic method. In addition, Robbins’s lectures provided the template for the textbook literature of the 1950s, cementing the influence of the LSE on the training of young economists. However, this training remained at the undergraduate level for the most part due to the lack of labour market demand for economists in Britain; in the United States, by contrast, graduate teaching became the motor through which American economics came to dominate the international teaching of economics.


1964 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-122
Author(s):  
Ronald Watts

This was the second in a series of three conferences on public policy, organised by the University of East Africa and financed by the Ford Foundation, whose aim is to bring together policy-makers and academics for discussions on major public issues.In attendance were delegations, of at least a dozen each, from Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika, consisting mainly of Cabinet Ministers, parliamentary secretaries, other M.P.s, and civil servants, as well as representatives of public corporations, political parties, and trade unions. Small delegations from Ethiopia, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, Southern Rhodesia, and Zanzibar were also invited. A group of 10 ‘visiting specialists’ from overseas with experience of federal systems and problems elsewhere were invited to take part. Among these were six economists: Ursula Hicks and Arthur Hazlewood from Oxford, Pitamber Pant of the Indian Planning Commission, Vladimir Kollontai from Moscow, Jan Auerhan from Prague, and Benton Massell (who was unable to attend but contributed a paper) from the United States. The others were a lawyer, S. A. de Smith from the London School of Economics, and three political scientists, Arthur MacMahon of Columbia University, A. H. Birch from Hull University, and myself. A group of a dozen ‘local specialists’ drawn mainly from E.A.C.S.O. and from the economists, lawyers, and political scientists at the University Colleges in East Africa also presented papers and played a significant role in the discussions. The total number of participants, including 22 observers, amounted to over 90.


2021 ◽  
pp. 141-172
Author(s):  
Keith Tribe

Marshall’s intellectual heritage is often described as ‘Marshallianism’, a general designation of his intellectual style as teacher and writer. But what exactly might this mean? While it is not necessarily wrong to describe his work in this way, it is necessary to have a clear idea of what the term denotes. To begin with, the work of Marshall is distinguished from that of his near (senior) contemporary, Stanley Jevons; but his death in 1882 came at a point when his version of economics had been gaining ground in Britain. While soon eclipsed by Marshall, this more formal approach later became the trademark of the London School of Economics in the 1920s, mediated by its Professor of Political Economy, Edwin Cannan. Then the work of Marshall as a teacher is examined, identifying an approach that sought to encourage students to apply their economic knowledge to the contemporary world. What he sought to inculcate in his students is shown by a discussion of the work of two of his students, A. C. Pigou and Sydney Chapman. This is then followed by a consideration of the composition and editorial changes to Marshall’s Principles of Economics, first published in 1890 and reaching a very much changed final edition in 1920, in which form it continued to be reprinted for much of the twentieth century. Notwithstanding the long life of this work, it can then be shown that, by the 1920s, criticism of Marshall’s approach to economic analysis was increasing, signalling the demise of the Marshallian heritage.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document