Perspectives on the history of economic thought. 1, Classical and neoclassical economic thought

This book is a collection of papers presented at the 1987 meeting of the History of Economics Society. Such a collection provides an indication of the curiosities that motivate a particular group working in a specialised area. The topics covered range widely. There are detailed examinations of the works of individuals whose names, particularly to an Anglo-Saxon audience, will evoke a twinge of recognition in only a few - Canard's theory of prices (Larson) and the economic contribution of N. G. Pierson (Heertje). There are examinations of schools of economics, the contributions of the Italian School to general economic theory in the eighteenth century (Bianchini), their contribution to the field of Public Finance (Kayaalp), thoughts on Dutch monetarism (Fase) and the Swedish School (Brems). Wider issues of conceptualisation are also not lacking. The concept of time in the history of economic thought is examined by Brandis, de Gijsel considers the role of general equilibrium theory in Walras's theory of social justice, Grosskettler gives a fascinating account of the Freiburg School's attempt to designate an economic order from first principles, and Kamath examines the methodological debates concerning rational expectations theory. Of the eight papers in Vol. i covering early and nineteenth century classical topics there is no paper on either monetary, trade, or macro-economic issues. Even Rashid's paper on English financial pamphleteers is mainly concerned with public finance. He is surely being slightly misleading when he says that 'concern with the balance of trade was quite limited' (vol. 1, page 3) . Of the twelve papers in Vol. 2 ten deal with monetary and macroeconomic issues. Of these, five are on Keynes. This does tend to reinforce the misconception that macroeconomics only started in the twentieth century. As Clower notes in his paper on the Keynes-Marshall connection, given the current muddle in macroeconomics 'some doctrine history backtracking would seem to be in order' (vol. 2, page 133). The styles of the papers range from the discursive to the slightly formal, not always appropriately so. Larson's paper on Canard's theory of prices reproduces Canard's obfuscating mathematics leaving the reader with the choice of either putting in much work to translate, or to accept Larson's conclusions about Canard's contributions on trust. At the end, or possibly about half-way through, I was inclined to accept Horner's (1803) conclusion that 'M. Canard has only translated, into a language less readily understood, truths of which the ordinary enunciation is intelligable and familiar to all'. I believe Larson is wrong to attribute to Horner a 'hostile view towards the application of mathematics to economics' (Vol. 1, page 52, f. 52). Horner had after all translated Euler's Elements of Algebra into English. Possibly his hostility was to mathematical obfuscation rather than its application, a hostility much to be applauded. On the other hand I would have been quite happy for a more formal and fuller analysis in Kayaalp's fascinating paper on Public Finance theory of the Italian School. This collection of papers will be of interest to a variety of scholars, not just those primarily interested in the history of economic thought. Klausinger's examination of how there has been a change in what was meant by the neutrality of money over time, provides a timely warning of a phenomenon not uncommon in economics and other fields that, because of a change in meaning, debates about what seem to be the same issue are not necessarily so. Trescott's paper on the real balance effect is of both historical and current theoretical interest. Though from the latter viewpoint it is slightly marred by a lack of reference to the inside-outside money debates which did clarify a point of importance for his analysis, namely, that inside money can also be considered as wealth. Clower's paper on the Keynes-Marshall connection can also be read with pleasure by both historians of thought and those interested in current problems in macroeconomics. Noell's paper on the different views of Sir Edward Coke and Adam Smith on regulation will provide enjoyment and puzzlement for those interested in Law and Economics. Those who are more interested in pursuing various ongoing debates in interpretation can turn to Mongiovi's paper on the role of demand in classical theory, Caravale's paper on continuity in classical economic thought, and various papers on Keynes. Those working in the field will look forward to future volumes from the History of Economics society.