Search

The early decades of the 20th century witnessed much discussion about the separation between positive and normative analysis, and the legitimacy of the prescriptive claims often advanced by social scientists. The paper investigates British debates about the reconstruction of the world order as a topic that brought together social analysts with very different backgrounds, and had the LSE as one of its focal points. The urgency of international politics at the time made it more difficult to sustain a clear distinction between positive analysis and policy prescription. To Lionel Robbins, the topic belonged to the applied domain of political economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses Darwin's image among economists with a specific focus on his theory of social evolution as presented in the Descent of Man (1871). We propose an analysis of the way and context in which economists refer to Darwin, mention his name and quote his writings. It then appears that Darwin is most of the time viewed as a biologist only, who never developed his own theory of social evolution. He is thus quoted as a biologist who either borrowed concepts from economists who developed a theory of social evolution, or laid the basis for biological theory of social evolution developed by others, Spencer, in particular. It is only recently that eventually the twofold dimensions - biological and social - of Darwin's general theory of evolution are considered together by bioeconomists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the connections between American institutionalists and a number of 'non-Marshallian' British economists and social scientists, several of whom were associated with the Fabian Society or the London School of Economics or both. Specifically, the links between institutionalists such as Walton Hamilton and Wesley Mitchell and British social scientists such as John A. Hobson, Henry Clay, R.A. Tawney, William Beveridge and Graham Wallas. It is argued that these connections were related to common views on the importance of institutions, compatible methodological views, common interest in questions of social value, shared policy concerns (particularly unemployment and the coal industry), shared interests in the development of new institutions for education and research in economics and shared connections with the funding activities of the Rockefeller Foundation. These connections were much more extensive than has usually been realized. Some reasons for this British group not to form into a movement similar to American institutionalism are explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines Marshall's use of Smith's writings in his own published work as an aspect of Marshall's citation practice and to demonstrate Marshall's great admiration for Smith as economist. Section 2 reviews the Smith citations in Marshall's Principles of Economics', section 3 those in Marshall's other published work. The conclusion notes that this citation practice matches Marshall's great admiration Smith the economist, because of Smith's great ability to blend fact and theory, for drawing measured conclusions and, above all, for constructing useful arguments in a field of imprecise knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

George J. Stigler's seminal role as one of the founders of the economics of science is summarized and evaluated. His main contribution rests in his asking an array of important questions and arguing persuasively for the application of empirical, and especially statistical, techniques to the answering of those questions. He asks whether and how science progresses; whether a scientist's biography is important in understanding his science; what characteristics of a scientist are most complementary to success in science; and how the professionalization of science redirects the attention of scientists more toward internal puzzle-solving, and less toward applied relevance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]