Although the ground I cover in this address is familiar, I approach it as a novice (Clower, 1973). I have written some history of economic thought papers over the past fifty years, but the bulk of my work has been theoretical; and I have known too many good historians of thought to imagine I belong in that class. As W. J. Ashley (1891) observed, “The economic historian … is apt to be confused in theory; [and] the … theorist runs the risk of being unhistorical” (compare Wicksell, 1904, p. 61). Unhistorical or not, I shall discuss some major vicissitudes of economic inquiry over the past three centuries.

Nicholas Kaldor (1908-86) and Joan Robinson (1903-83) were almost exact contemporaries and enjoyed very similar careers. Both began as innovative but fundamentally orthodox microeconomists, soon turning (very early, in the case of Robinson) to the defense and development of Keynesian macroeconomics. They were both lifelong socialists and, during the Second World War, energetic propagandists for the fledgling British welfare state. In the 1950s each published a series of penetrating critiques of neoclassical distribution and growth theory, subsequently extending the attack to mainstream analyses of value, international trade, development, and the very foundations of equilibrium methodology. By 1975 Kaldor and Robinson were generally recognized as the founding parents of Post Keynesian economics in Britain, or what its U.S. progenitor Sidney Weintraub described as the “Kaldor-Kalecki-Robinson revolution in distribution theory” (Eichner and Kregel, 1975; Weintraub, 1972, p. 45). For some years they were close personal friends. They spent decades–indeed, Robinson spent her entire working life–in Cambridge, where they were belatedly appointed to chairs in 1966.

Don Patinkin (1922-95) was a co-author of the Keynesian neoclassical synthesis, and became engaged in several important controversies. One of them involved Milton Friedman's (1956) assertion about a supposed Chicago quantity theory “oral tradition.” From 1968 until his death, Patinkin hardly seemed to miss an opportunity of denigrating what he regarded as Friedman's “invention.” This controversy was taken to the 1970 American Economic Association (AEA) meeting by Harry Johnson (1971), and divided at least two economics departments, Chicago and the University of Western Ontario, where Patinkin and Johnson were frequent visitors, and where two influential monetarists, David Laidler and Michael Parkin, had migrated from Britain (Parkin, 1986; Patinkin, 1986).

In the early years of the twentieth century, two outspoken and brilliant American economists, Thorstein Veblen and Irving Fisher, offered sharply-contrasting visions of how the discipline of economics should be transformed. Each taught at a leading university and had added prominence as a journal editor, but pursued economic inquiry in ways alien to senior colleagues at his university and in the profession at large. Despite the gulf separating their approaches to economics, they had been doctoral students of the same mentor, William Graham Sumner of Yale, and had each been deeply influenced by Sumner. This paper uses the exchange on neoclassical capital theory between Veblen and Fisher in the Political Science Quarterly in 1908 and 1909 to illuminate their approaches to economics and to question why the American economics profession came to follow Fisher's path–even though Veblen, unlike Fisher, attracted devoted disciples and was considered in American social thought (excepting academic economists) as the standard-bearer of “the New Economics.” Despite Veblen's antipathy to those aspects of Fisher's work that became dominant in mainstream economics, there was a close affinity between Veblen's Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) and Fisher's debt-deflation theory of depressions, which remained (until very recently) outside the mainstream and has been taken up by such heterodox economists as Hyman Minsky.

Economic justice in the labor market is an abiding issue of economic policy. Concerns regarding fair pay or just compensation were addressed in classical political economy and continue to be the objects of policy discussion. What constitutes a fair wage? How is a fair wage to be determined? Will competition in the labor market ensure that a fair wage is established? Should employers be required by the State, or persuaded on a voluntary basis, to pay wages that maintain a family's dignity and honor?

In the current era of quantity theorists and inconvertible currencies, the real bills doctrine has received a surprising amount of recent attention (e.g., Sargent and Wallace, 1982; Smith, 1988; Selgin, 1989; Cunningham, 1992). While the real bills doctrine has a long history, the doctrine underwent considerable evolution during the period from the Bullionist debates of the Restriction Period, 1797–1819, to the Banking School versus Currency School debates surrounding the introduction of Peel's Act in 1844. The debates of the Restriction period are significant for being directly concerned with the workings of an inconvertible, real-bills-based paper currency while the later debates involved the real bills doctrine under convertibility. A primary objective of this paper is to explore the views that Robert Torrens held concerning the inconvertible and convertible versions of the real bills doctrine as a rule for central bank policy. Torrens's contributions as an anti-bullionist and, later, as a leading member of the Currency School reflect the importance that both convertibility and bank lending practices have for interpreting the real bills doctrine and the related law of reflux. The apparently paradoxical evolution of Torrens's monetary thought identified by Lionel Robbins (1958) is attributed primarily to the evolution of his views on bank lending practices.

Among my happiest memories is a 1948 lecture on Adam Smith by a teacher who often read from and commented on primary texts. On the day in question, he arrived with a stack of books, from which he proceeded to read, one after another, for some 40 minutes. Finally he came to the last book in the stack, Smith's Wealth of Nations, from which he read the following:

Over the past two decades, technology and innovation have become common themes within the economic growth and economic development literatures. This renewed emphasis is highlighted by the developments in endogenous growth theory (Romer, 1986, 1990; Barro and Sala-I-Martin, 1995), but many have noted that its roots can, in part, be traced to the works of Joseph A. Schumpeter (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Blaug, 1986; Rostow, 1990; Cheng and Dinopoulos, 1992; Freeman 1994; Thanawala, 1994). Schumpeter's principal contributions include his theory that the creative response of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial innovation are the primary determinants of economic change. However, most argue that his vision of entrepreneurs is dichotomous, with one part corresponding to his European period, and the other to his American period (see, for example, Phillips, 1971; Klein, 1977; Nelson, 1977; Freeman, 1982, 1994; Swedberg, 1991; Scherer, 1992; Thanawala, 1994; Malerbaand Orsenigo, 1995). The initial part of his work, it is argued, focuses not on large firms and market structures, but on small firms and individual entrepreneurs. Here Schumpeter presents entrepreneurs as isolated, romanticized individuals who challenge the social system and indirectly propel society to greater economic heights. This period, it is argued, reflects the European half of his life. Schumpeter's American period begins with his stays at Harvard for the academic year of 1927-28, and for a greater part of the year 1930. It is generally argued that in this American period, Schumpeter altered his vision of economic development to accentuate the advantages of monopolistic competition, and to include large established corporations and government agencies as agglomerations capable of fulfilling the entrepreneurial function.