Following World War II, the director of the social sciences division at the Rockefeller Foundation, the industrial economist Joseph H. Willits, thought it important to extend its activities to Europe, especially France. His agenda was to strengthen institutional economics and to create modern research centers with a view to stabilizing the political situation. In the postwar decade, almost all economic research centers in France were funded by the Foundation, which helped provide greater autonomy to French economists within academia but failed to reshape French economic training and research.

This paper is an attempt to historicize Frank Plumpton Ramsey’s Apostle talks delivered from 1923 to 1925 within the social and political context of the time. In his talks, Ramsey discusses socialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism. Ramsey’s views on these three intellectual movements were interconnected, and they all contributed to his take on the policy debates occurring then on the role of women in economy. Drawing on archival materials, biographical facts, and the historiographical literature on the early interwar politics of motherhood, I show that Ramsey held a positive view of the feminist campaign for family endowment. He demanded government financial support for motherhood in recognition of the economic significance of women’s domestic works, which, as such, could bring economic independence to them. In addition, he found such an economic scheme compatible with the kind of maternalism endorsed by Freudian psychoanalysis—his favorite theory of psychology.

Aaron Director taught at the University of Chicago from 1930 to 1934 and from 1946 to 1965. Both periods corresponded to crucial stages in the development of Chicago monetary economics under the leaderships of Henry Simons and Milton Friedman, respectively. Any impact that Director may have had in the development of those stages and on the relationship between the views of Simons and Friedman has been frustrated by Director’s lack of publications. I provide evidence, much of it for the first time, showing the important role played by Director in the development of Chicago monetary economics, including his role as a transmitter of Simons’s ideas to Friedman.

In the article I examine how model builders from the academia and from the Federal Reserve Board confronted the Phillips curve in the construction and subsequent modifications of the Federal Reserve, MIT, and University of Pennsylvania macroeconometric model. It is argued that academic debates on Milton Friedman’s and Edmund Phelps’s accelerationist hypothesis, and the evolution of the macroeconomics discipline, did not affect the model-building agenda at the Division of Research and Statistics at the Board over the 1970s and 1980s.

Like other Progressive Era reformers, Thomas Nixon Carver promoted a form of biology-infused social science that included both eugenics and a strong version of hereditarianism. Carver was also a charismatic teacher who trained several generations of economists and sociologists at Harvard. In this paper we will focus on the contribution of three of them: James A. Field, Norman E. Himes, and Carl S. Joslyn. These authors differ in terms of style, method, and emphasis—with Field and Himes more interested in population and birth control issues, and Joslyn in the dynamics of social stratification. As it will be shown below, however, all of them reveal an explicit commitment to hereditarianism and eugenics, which can be directly traced back to Carver’s influence during their student days at Harvard.

For forty or so years, from the 1930s to the mid-1970s, Desmond Hobart Houghton was one of South Africa’s most prominent economists, based throughout his academic career at Rhodes University. He belonged to the liberal school of economists who believed in the free market and modernization theory, being particularly influenced by Walt Rostow’s stages of growth model, which he applied to South Africa. The rural economy, migrant labor, and regional development, with a particular focus on the Eastern Cape, were his major research interests. He authored a standard text on the South African economy. This article charts his career and thinking.

Bernard Lonergan S.J. (1904–1984) is unusual among major theologians in engaging deeply with economic theory. In the 1940s he developed his own dynamic multisectoral macroeconomic model, informed by readings of Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Friedrich Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter, and later Michal Kalecki. Lonergan’s economic research is little known because the economic manuscripts were not published in his lifetime and his interactions with professional economists were limited. In the 1970s, however, when he returned to economics he engaged with post-Keynesians and taught a graduate course on macroeconomics at Boston College until illness overtook him. This paper places Lonergan’s economic research in the context of his overall intellectual project, outlines his macroeconomic model and associated theory of the business cycle, then evaluates his contribution in relation to mid-twentieth-century macroeconomics and considers whether it has anything to offer contemporary economists. Whatever view we take of his theoretical contributions, Lonergan’s work opens up connections between economics and theology.

This paper deals with the initial reception of the Marshall Plan by Georges Bataille and François Perroux in light of the discussion they held in the journal Critique, during the second half of 1948. I argue that Bataille and Perroux took the Marshall Plan as an enigma that current economic and political theories were not able to explain fully. In response, both authors contributed a unique and sophisticated economic analysis to transcend what they perceived as the limited scope of economics. By focusing on this interdisciplinary dialogue, this paper is intended as a contribution to a history of economic thought, taking in the economic inquiry of non-economists and the ways in which they relate to professional economists.

Accounts of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s career usually focus on his pioneer contributions to mathematical economics during the 1930s and his later conversion to a critical approach to economic theory anchored on the entropy law. These disparate moments, however, were connected by Georgescu-Roegen’s strong attraction to the study of problems afflicting less developed societies. This began with his work on the agrarian economy of his native Romania, in the late 1940s, under the auspices of Harvard’s Russian Research Center. Thenceforth, he embarked on a journey that spawned his early interest in Leontief-type linear models, an extended tour of Southeast Asia commissioned by Vanderbilt University’s Graduate Program in Economic Development, and several visits to Brazil during the 1960s. The paper highlights these lesser-known aspects of Georgescu-Roegen’s trajectory, examining how he built on neo-populist writings from the early twentieth century to construct an alternative to the mainstream emphasis on industrialization policies.

From the late 1930s to the end of World War II, the Japanese government restricted freedom of expression and research. Nevertheless, Zenya Takashima (1904–1990), one of the most influential social scientists in Japan, continued to publish his writings. On an initial reading, he seems to have supported totalitarianism, even though he did not; moreover, he seemed to have agreed with a model of a controlled economy as a historical step, although he did not see this as inevitable. Rather, in order to resist the totalitarian ideology, he adopted a Smithian view of “Shimin Shakai,” or civil society, in which people, by protecting justice, acted freely in the economy. Before Takashima, the concept of civil society was used to express the German concept “bürgerliche Gesellschaft,” but Takashima changed the meaning of the term to a society of equal citizens.

In the early twentieth century, an economic doctrine known as “non-proletarianization theory” became influential among left-wing Zionists in Russia. According to this theory, Jewish workers were unable to “proletarianize”—that is, to integrate large-scale industry; hence, Jewish territorial autonomy was required, whether in Palestine or elsewhere. This article analyzes this theory’s historical development, focusing on the works of three authors: Haim Dov Horovitz, Yakov Leshchinsky, and Ber Borochov. I claim that discussions of Jewish non-proletarianization can be considered a specific and coherent intellectual tradition in the history of economic thought. I also discuss these theories’ relation to the anti-sweatshop campaign of the Progressive Era, particularly John R. Commons’s writings on Jewish immigrants that were recently debated in this journal.

This article examines a hitherto neglected aspect of the expansion of international trade in nineteenth-century East Asia—that of how ordinary people understood changing trade patterns. Rather than the political debates and imperial competition that have been the focus of existing research, I use the diary of Sim Wŏn’gwŏn (1850–1933), a farmer from Ulsan, southeastern Korea, to assess how knowledge shaped Sim’s perception of, and response to, the international grain trade. Sim used his diary to develop an economic world view based on his observation of cyclical, seasonal changes in the weather, harvests, and prices. While this enabled Sim to anticipate some fluctuations, the international rice trade posed a challenge as local market prices began to reflect events beyond Sim’s sphere of information. I argue that uneven access to knowledge influenced Sim’s participation in international trade, which in turn cannot be understood without reference to Sim’s existing understanding of the economy.

Tibor Scitovsky’s The Joyless Economy (1976) is now regarded as a landmark publication in the combined fields of economics and psychology, with standard accounts of Scitovsky’s ideas emphasizing the influence of 1960s motivational psychology literature. While this encounter is all-important, Scitovsky’s ideas must at the same time be read in the context of the evolution of his critique of twentieth-century mass society. The present paper presents that critique and demonstrates its fundamental importance for Scitovsky’s diagnosis of an economy he termed “joyless.” Drawing upon his “Memoirs,” we show how Scitovsky’s ideas were initially shaped by the culture/aesthetics of his early years in Budapest, followed by his experiences of rising totalitarianism in interwar Europe, and further affected by his move to the consumption society of postwar America. The way he engaged with the writings of influential contemporary cultural commentators, including André Gide, Erich Fromm, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Lewis Mumford, and Bernard Rudofsky, was incisive. Close scrutiny also reveals resonances between Scitovsky’s cultural concerns and those of some of the Bloomsbury Group.

The repeal of the British Combination Laws in 1824 is generally considered by historians as the landmark of modern trade unionism, and has been attributed to the contributions of classical political economists. In the sole article that addressed this issue in the field of the history of economic thought, William Grampp reached the opposite conclusion, according to which the influence of the economists (John Ramsay McCulloch, David Ricardo, Thomas Robert Malthus, Robert Torrens, and Nassau William Senior) on repeal was actually small. Resituating the debates over the Combination Laws in their political context, we try to show, despite the relatively reduced volume of the classical economists’ direct contributions, that the economists were clearly favorable to the measure, and how “political economy” played a significant role in the achievement of repeal. In doing so, we offer a reflection on the methodology used by Grampp to study the influence of economic ideas on political debates and public policy.

Rui Barbosa was a renowned jurist who served as the first finance minister of the Brazilian Republic, established in 1889. Despite his renown as an intellectual, Barbosa faced a severe financial crisis during his ministerial tenure and gained a bad reputation for his economic policy. In the texts produced in this context, he combined different traditions of economic thought from the point of view of the legal expert serving as economic policy-maker. In the field of public finance, while assimilating arguments associated to German state socialism and its North American developments, he was also influenced by French liberal economist Paul Leroy-Beaulieu. Through these international assimilations, Barbosa constructed an assemblage of economic ideas organized not by theoretical affiliations in the contemporary sense but around two main goals: to rationalize and legitimize his policy as finance minister and to influence the legal ordering of the Brazilian fiscal economy.

Following Adam Smith’s line of argument, we examine the semantics of four economic principles in Chapter III of the Wealth of Nations that compose his famous proposition “that the division of labour is limited by the extent of the market.” We apply the Natural Semantic Metalanguage framework in linguistics to produce a series of explications that are clear and plain, cross-translatable into any language, intelligible to twenty-first-century readers, and faithfully close to the original text. Our paper explicates Smith’s logical argument in Chapter III and demonstrates how his ideas can be shared among speakers with different linguacultural backgrounds in line with the truly global view of economics that, we argue, Adam Smith had in mind: economics intended as the science of all people living and doing things together with other people to live well and to feel good.

In the eighteenth-century Scottish and British cultural context, idleness was a central issue for religion, literature, art, and philosophy. This paper analyzes the reflections of David Hume and Adam Smith on idleness and commercial society. Hume advanced his most provocative view on the subject in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), where idleness is represented as the endowment made by the “very sparing hand” of the “author of nature” to humanity. My argument is that Smith’s view on idleness that was advanced in the Wealth of Nations (1776) is connected to Hume’s Dialogues, as Smith’s invisible hand defeats idleness through a combination of self-interest, the propensity to exchange, and the division of labor. The broader aim of this study is to add to the philosophical relationship between the Scottish philosophers.

Adam Smith allegedly offers a model of economic development in both his Lectures on Jurisprudence and the Wealth of Nations—the so-called four stages of development model. The model presents a linear unfolding view of economic development from primitive to advanced stages. But Smith’s own historical examples systematically contradict this model. I thus question whether Adam Smith actually endorses and uses the four stages model of development to illustrate development and suggest that if he does, he does it to discredit it instead. For Smith, history teaches that development is more accidental than fitting deterministic models.

Surprisingly, Benjamin Graham, the acknowledged “Father of Value Investing,” considered his most important work to be the invention of the Commodity Reserve Currency Plan during the 1930s and 1940s. Previous studies of the Plan have overlooked the fact that, of its three main components (buffer stocks, price stability, and currency backing), Graham regarded the first as the most important and the other two as “secondary” or “subsidiary.” By focusing on the buffer-stock aspect, we demonstrate, first, the breadth and depth of Graham’s overall conception in terms of both micro- and macroeconomics, and, second, the considerable overlap with John Maynard Keynes’s ideas developed around the same time, which are manifested particularly in their common conclusion that the inefficiency of commodity markets could be rectified only by government intervention. We also comment on Perry Mehrling’s assessment of Graham as “not any kind of economist at all” (JHET 2011).

James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock took a keen interest in the United States Supreme Court’s reapportionment decisions of the 1960s, which established a “one person, one vote” standard for state legislative apportionment. This paper traces the long arc of Buchanan and Tullock’s opposition to the “one person, one vote” standard. The Calculus of Consent offers a highly qualified efficiency argument against “one person, one vote,” but over time Buchanan and Tullock grew even more vocally critical of the decisions. Buchanan ultimately advocated a constitutional amendment overturning “one person, one vote” in a private set of recommendations to Congressional Republicans. This paper additionally assesses Tullock’s 1987 complaint that scholars and judges neglected The Calculus of Consent’s analysis of reapportionment. A review of the reapportionment literature between 1962 and 1987 demonstrates that while The Calculus of Consent was frequently cited, the literature generally ignored its analysis of the efficiency of apportionment standards.