scholarly journals Journal of the History of Economic Thought Preprints - A.J. Brown, 'Phillips’ Curve', and Economic Networks in the 1950s

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth John Button
Keyword(s):  
Phillips Curve ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
History Of Economic Thought ◽  
Economic Networks ◽  
Wage Change ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Ordinal Interpretation

This paper is concerned with examining the role of the English economist Arthur (A.J.) Brown in the 1950s debate surrounding the wage-change unemployment relationship. While the publication of William (Bill) Phillips’ 1958 paper, and the subsequent moniker of the “Phillips Curve” attracted a wealth of attention, Brown’s book on the subject, The Great Inflation, and his later work on inflation, has received much less. Here the focus is on redressing somewhat this situation by looking at Brown’s work to see how much it predates Phillips’ paper, and what differences there are to it. We also considers this within the changing institutional structure of English economic networks in the 1950s that led to a relatively rapid acceptance of Phillips’ analysis, and in many cases, to a strong, ordinal interpretation of the Phillips Curve that overshadowed Brown’s work.

A. J. BROWN, “PHILLIPS’S CURVE,” AND ECONOMIC NETWORKS IN THE 1950S

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth Button
Keyword(s):  
Wage Rate ◽  
Phillips Curve ◽  
Institutional Structure ◽  
Rate Change ◽  
Economic Networks ◽  
Great Inflation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Ordinal Interpretation

This paper examines the role of the English economist Arthur (A. J.) Brown in the 1950s debate surrounding the wage-rate change/unemployment relationship. While the publication of William (Bill) Phillips’s 1958 paper and the subsequent moniker of the “Phillips Curve” attracted a wealth of attention, Brown’s book on the subject, The Great Inflation, and his later work on inflation have received much less. Here, the focus is on redressing this situation somewhat by looking at Brown’s work to see how much it predates Phillips’s paper, and what differences there are to it. We also consider this within the changing institutional structure of English economic networks in the 1950s that led to a relatively rapid acceptance of Phillips’s analysis and, in many cases, to a strong, ordinal interpretation of the Phillips Curve that overshadowed Brown’s work.

Cardinal Versus Ordinal Utility: António Horta Osório's Contribution

2007 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Eugénia Mata
Keyword(s):  
General Equilibrium ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
History Of Economic Thought ◽  
Cardinal Utility ◽  
Demand Theory ◽  
Ordinal Utility ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Utility Indifference

The history of economic thought remembers António Horta Osório for Schumpeter's reference to him in the History of Economic Analysis, in the context of a general appraisal of available works using mathematical instruments and language. This, however, does not do him justice, as he should also be praised for his pioneering interpretation of Pareto's general equilibrium. According to Stigler (1965), the definitive substitution of the cardinal utility hypothesis for the ordinal utility perspective was achieved by Johnson (1913) and Slutsky (1915). Weber (2001) discusses how far Pareto used cardinality, elects Slutsky (1915) as a pioneer of demand theory and prefers to reserve to R. G. Allen (1932–34), L. R. Klein and H. Rubin (1947–48), Samuelson (1947–48), R. C. Geary (1950–51), and Richard Stone (1954) the role of establishing ordinal utility in studying the utility function. This paper shows that Osório (1911) considered the subject of ordinalism before Johnson and Slutsky addressed the issue, as he had rejected the possibility of measuring utility and clearly stated that general equilibrium is not affected if cardinality is replaced by the ordinal conception for utility, according to Pareto's last formulation. Upon reading his book it becomes clear that not only was he perfectly aware of Edgeworth's contribution on the utility indifference curves, but also of Pareto's attempts to preserve general equilibrium from Fisher's criticism against cardinalism. Historians of economic thought have forgotten one of the early twentieth-century neoclassical economists. In this way the History of Economics has neglected an interesting proof of the consolidation of the Paretian ideas on ordinality, an issue that was an exciting and uncharted territory at that moment.

scholarly journals Is history of economic thought a "serious" subject?

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Cristina Marcuzzo
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Economic Thought ◽  
Historical Narrative ◽  
Contextual Analysis ◽  
History Of Economic Thought ◽  
Textual Exegesis ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the nature of research methods in the history of economic thought. In reviewing the "techniques" which are involved in the discipline, four broader categories are identified: a) textual exegesis; b) "rational reconstructions"; c) "contextual analysis"; and d) "historical narrative". After examining these different styles of doing history of economic thought, the paper addresses the question of its appraisal, namely what is good history of economic thought. Moreover, it is argued that there is a distinction to be made between doing economics and doing history of economic thought. The latter requires the greatest possible respect for contexts and texts, both published and unpublished; the former entails constructing a theoretical framework that is in some respects freer, not bound by derivation, from the authors. Finally, the paper draws upon Econlit records to assess what has been done in the subject in the last two decades in order to frame some considerations on how the past may impinge on the future.

scholarly journals “Journal of the History of Economic Thought Preprints - Economists and Their Travels, or the Time When JFK Sent Douglass North on a Mission to Brazil”

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro Boianovsky
Keyword(s):  
Economic Thought ◽  
History Of Economic Thought ◽  
Economic Systems ◽  
History Of Economics ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Douglass North

The role of traveling as a source of discovery and development of new ideas has been controversial in the history of economics. Despite their protective attitude toward established theory, economists have traveled widely and gained new insights or asked new questions as a result of their exposition to “other” economic systems, ideas and forms of behavior. That is particularly the case when they travel to new places while their frameworks are in their initial stages or undergoing changes. This essay examines economists’ traveling as a potential source of new hypotheses, from the 18th to the 20th centuries, with a detailed case study of Douglass North’s 1961 travel to Brazil.

Book Reviews

2014 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1162-1165
Keyword(s):  
Economic Thought ◽  
History Of Economic Thought ◽  
History Of

Catherine Herfeld of the Munich Center for Mathematical Philosophy reviews “Defending the History of Economic Thought”, by Steven Kates. The Econlit abstract of this book begins: “Explores the importance of the study of the history of economic thought to the practice of economics. Discusses why to study the history of economic thought; debating the role of the history of economic thought; teaching the history of economic thought; and defending the history of economic thought. Kates is with the School of Economics, Finance, and Marketing at RMIT University.”

How Should We Approach the History of Economic Thought, Fact, Fiction or Moral Tale?

1992 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger E. Backhouse
Keyword(s):  
Economic Thought ◽  
History Of Economic Thought ◽  
Healthy State ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Traditional Approaches ◽  
The Way

This paper reviews the way in which constructivist or anti-representationalist arguments have been used as an argument in favor of changing the way we write the history of economic thought. It is argued that though such arguments provide some important new perspectives on the subject, their use as a comprehensive methodological critique of “traditional” approaches to the subject rests on the theses that a non-foundationalist methodology is impossible, and that we can assume that contemporary economics is in a healthy state. If these theses are not accepted, the case against “traditional” histories collapses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document