The last twenty-five years of the twentieth century were freighted with important moments for historians of economic thought: the collapse of the Keynesian consensus, the rise (and fall) of monetarism, the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the other Marxist-Leninist states in central and eastern Europe, the rise of neo-liberalism, and arguments over the possible emergence of a “New Economy” following the internet investment boom at the end of the 1990s. Each of these moments will require its own history as we slowly move away from the tumult of the times and begin to weigh them for their own significance. But several of the moments have a common iconic face in Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1979 to 1990. Few other individuals so readily embody the sense of the times. Thatcher's election—a full year and a half before Ronald Reagan's—marks for many people the moment when Keynesian policies finally and irretrievably lost their legitimacy. Likewise, the timing of her election, just two months before Paul Volcker's selection as the chair of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in the United States, also means that for many people Thatcher's is the public face of monetarism's ascendancy. Finally, there is probably no one person whose name is so clearly associated with the rise of free market thinking and neo-liberalism during the end of the twentieth century.

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.

In his attempt to improve Carl Menger’s economics, Friedrich von Wieser frequently discussed methodological issues. This paper proposes that Wieser’s epistemological position can be understood as the result of a reformulation of the empirical position that Menger (1871) developed in his Grundsätze der Volkswirthschaftslehre. This paper proposes four ways of interpreting Wieser’s concept of “experience”: i) experience stored in language, ii) experience as introspection, iii) experience as a mental experiment, and iv) experience as observation. Because Wieser applied the concept of “motivational power” derived from psychological induction in order to explain observable social phenomena, this paper calls his position “methodological motivationalism.” This particular position can help explain his later shift to sociological studies.

John Maynard Keynes’s analysis of the Great Depression has strong parallels to recent theorizing about the post-2008 Great Recession. There are also remarkable similarities between the two historical episodes: the collapse of demand for new fixed investment, the role of the zero lower bound liquidity trap in hampering conventional monetary policy, the multi-year period of near-zero short-term rates, and the protracted period of subnormal prosperity. A major difference between then and now is that monetary authorities in the recent situation actively pursued an unconventional policy with massive purchases of long-term securities. Keynes couldn’t convince authorities of his era to pursue such a plan, but it was precisely the monetary policy he advocated for a depressed economy stuck at the zero lower bound of nominal interest rates.

David Ricardo indicated in his famous numerical example in the Principles that it would be advantageous to Portugal to import English cloth made by 100 men, although it could have been produced locally with the labor of only 90 Portuguese men. As the production of the cloth required less quantity of labor in Portugal, it has been commonly inferred that this country had a production cost advantage over England in cloth making. This inference will be proven wrong here by showing that the English cloth had a lower cost of production than the Portuguese cloth. This finding refutes the widespread belief that Ricardo had formulated a new law, principle, or rule for international specialization, known as “comparative advantage.” He used the same rule for specialization as Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Thus, the popular contraposition of Smith’s absolute versus Ricardo’s comparative cost advantage has to be dismissed.

This paper discusses the historical changes in economic and ideological conditions through which greed turned from one of the deadly sins into a passion from which society derived social benefits. Adding to the perspective developed by Hirschman in his The Passions and the Interests, three stages are distinguished in the construction of the notion of the social utility of greed: (1) the self-sufficient community; (2) the mercantile state; and (3) commercial society. The paper relates how changing conditions led philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to recognize the conditional usefulness of greed and, eventually, to build a dream on the idea of greed as instrumental in establishing the material foundation of progress in society.

Henry Martyn's Considerations Upon the East-India Trade, published anonymously in 1701, stands out as a major contribution to the field of political economy that took root in Britain in the eighteenth century, and to the demonstration of the gains from free trade (Martyn 1701). Martyn provided one of the earliest formulations (and by far the clearest) of what Jacob Viner termed the “eighteenth-century rule” for the gains from trade, that “it pays to import commodities from abroad whenever they can be obtained in exchange for exports at a smaller real cost than their production at home would entail” (Viner 1937, p. 440). The numerical examples that Martyn used to illustrate it went even beyond the case for free trade advanced seventy-five years later by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Martyn's tract contains other remarkable insights that became important features of classical political economy, such as the nature and advantages of the division of labor, the dependence of the latter on the extent of the market, the workings of a market economy, the role of money, and the impact of international trade on resource allocation, on productivity, and on economic welfare.

The Wealth of Nations (WN) is not a book from which we expect much enlightenment about class conflict. In spite of well-known passages referring to the diverging interests of workers, landlords and capitalists, the impression most have of WN is one of relative harmony among the classes. Nevertheless, Book III, “Of the different Progress of Opulence in different Nations,” which is the briefest and also the least studied of the five books comprising WN, provides considerable insight into the historical origin of conflict among social classes that derive from economic causes, and the circumstances under which conflict promises to become a characteristic feature of the economic process in any society.1 A re-examination of Adam Smith's theory of natural price in the context of the “stages of social history” developed in Book III, leads to interpreting the prospect for class conflict as a more integral and substantive part of WN than is generally recognized by historians of economic thought.

On October 1, 1936 the Stockholm economists hosted a very distinguished guest, John Maynard Keynes. Homeward bound from a visit to the Soviet Union, Keynes appeared at the Political Economy Club. The minutes, as recorded by Ingvar Svennilson, relate:

1. 1. At the invitation of the club, Mr. J.M. Keynes lectured at the Institute of Social Science on the subject “My grounds for departure from orthodox economic traditions.” The lecture was arranged with support from J.H. Palme's fund for economic education and economic research. Some 100 persons attended the lecture.

2. 2. Following the lecture, the club arranged a dinner at the student union building. In addition to Mr. and Mrs. Keynes, the dinner was attended by: the chairman Professor Ohlin, Miss Kock, Messrs. Björ, Böök, Cederwall, Dahlgren, Hammarskjöld, Helger, Johansson, Lagercrantz (guest), Lundberg, Myrdal, Rothlieb, Rooth, Suoviranta (Finland, guest) and Wigforss, as well as the undersigned. After dinner there was a discussion that continued until midnight.

Loïc Charles and Philippe Steiner (2000) rightly draw our attention to Quesnay's neglected political views, namely the project of making France strong enough to confront England in economic and in military affairs. Schematically, Quesnay insists more upon wealth than upon population, which makes for a difference with most of the economists of his time, and more upon the navy than upon the army. Walter Eltis (1999) carefully relates the “explanations” of the Tableau économique contained in l'Ami des Hommes and the Philosophie rurale to the policy recommendations of Quesnay. He emphasizes the practical character of these different Tableaux in contrast with the abstract character of the first versions and of the Formule. He also gives a detailed account of the efects of diferent policies, namely the extension of grande culture, free trade of corn (which amounts to a higher price of corn), and tax reform. Gianni Vaggi (2001) insists on the modernization of agriculture as a decisive element of the power of a nation. Such preoccupations seem well in accordance with Quesnay's more general concern—that is, refounding the French monarchy on a natural order in which politics and economics can hardly be distinguished.

The following is a transcription of a 2019 conversation with Duke historian E. Roy Weintraub about his intellectual development over the 1980s from mathematician to economist to historian. The conversation also explored Weintraub’s early and continuing attempts to forge new ways to study the history of contemporary economics, and the role of science studies in providing a natural language for such explorations. A French translation has already been published in the journal Zilsel: Science, technique, société.

Allen V. Kneese is called the “father” or “pioneer” of the field of environmental economics but, despite his contributions to that field and the importance of his works, Kneese has not been acknowledged sufficiently in the history of environmental economic thought, and differences between his research and that in the Pigouvian tradition have been obscured over time. This article focuses on his research in the 1960s on water quality management and inquires into differences between his work and that in the Pigouvian tradition. Kneese alternated between theoretical and empirical work and revised the Pigouvian framework pragmatically. The Kneesian framework consists of a two-stage approach, and its substructure is the institutional form of policy agents. To understand the historical meaning of the Kneesian approach, it is useful to compare it to John Krutilla’s “evaluation of non-market value,” Ronald Coase’s “comparative institutional approach,” and Elinor Ostrom’s “Commons.”

Based on archival evidence, this paper demonstrates that Keynes did not borrow the concept of the marginal efficiency of capital from Fisher, but, rather, developed it himself.

Italy entered the war in May 1915; the USA, in April 1917. One hundred years on, this paper examines the viewpoint of Antonio de Viti de Marco, the renowned Italian economist who was one of the founders of the pure theory of public finance. It first focuses on De Viti’s interpretation of the economic and political aspects of the Great War, and reconstructs his vision of the world conflict as a struggle between liberal democracies and authoritarian states. Second, the paper highlights the convergence of De Viti’s ideals with those of President Wilson, seen as the powerful international leader of the Italian democratic interventionists. It also clarifies that the “Wilsonianism” of this movement originated in the Italian Risorgimento, and suggests that this convergence was not coincidental. Finally, it shows how, after the war, the unconditional admiration De Viti felt for the American positions gave way to bitter disappointment.

Although the capitalist entrepreneur played a significant role in the early classical explanation of capital markets and economic development, mainstream opinion in the history of economic thought merely holds that eighteenth-century economists failed to distinguish the entrepreneurial function from that of supplying financial capital. Accordingly, one considers the conception of the capitalist entrepreneur an erroneous view—characterized by the confusion between profits and interest—that Jean-Baptiste Say corrected at the turn of the century (Schumpeter 1954, p. 555; Koolman 1971, p. 276). Moreover, this conception has been mainly ascribed to British authors (Perroux 1929, p. 1665; Cole 1942, pp. 120–1; Hoselitz 1951, p. 212; Blaug 1985, pp. 459–60), a claim which certainly goes back to Say's opinion that:

Friendship-and-love expresses musings about well-being—while the object of the musings, i.e., “well-being,” is the economist’s substantive satisfaction. Insofar as altruism is about well-being and not the musings, it cannot be subsumed under friendship-and-love. However, what is the basis of the difference between the economist’s substantive satisfaction and friendship-and-love? The answer can be found in Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments, chapter 2: how “mutual sympathy” differs from substantive satisfaction. Smith scholars generally miss the uniqueness of “mutual sympathy” and, indeed, fold it under Smith’s “sympathy” (and “empathy”)—with one exception. Robert Sugden highlights the uniqueness of mutual sympathy. However, he goes to the other end, that is, he folds Smith’s sympathy-and-empathy under mutual sympathy. This paper aims to avoid the folding in either direction. Indeed, it argues that each fellow-feeling deals with a question that is orthogonal to the other. Mutual sympathy originates love-based sociality (friendship-and-love), which can be juxtaposed to interest-based sociality, i.e., substantive satisfaction, such as altruism. These genera of sociality are about the nature of satisfaction or preferences, and hence in contrast to sympathy-and-empathy that are basically about judgments. As judgments, sympathy-and-empathy are ultimately about the nature of decision making, irrespective of whether the decisions concerning love-based or interest-based preferences.

This article proposes a historical assessment of harmonic analysis of business cycles and its ability to both decompose and build cycles, as received at the Moscow Conjuncture Institute. It traces how the Fourier transform arrived at the Institute, mediated by Henry L. Moore, in the works and actions of Albert Vainshtein, Nikolai Chetverikov, and Nikolai Kondratiev, ultimately leading to Eugen Slutsky’s well-known 1927 article “The Summation of Random Causes as the Source of Cyclic Processes.” Although the evidence does not warrant the assumption that there was an orchestrated effort at the Institute to push forward a research agenda on harmonic analysis of business cycles, it certainly unfolded as more than the summation of random events and individual incursions. Moreover, the Institute as a whole could have produced much more on this matter if it had escaped Stalinist oppression for at least a few more years.

The late nineteenth century saw the multiplication of statistical studies on Jewish populations. This literature is now known as “Jewish Statistics” or “Jewish Social Science” (JSS). This article focuses on the articles published in Zeitschrift für Demographie und Statistik der Juden (Journal for Demography and Statistics of the Jews, ZDSJ). The ZDSJ was the main journal in JSS and appeared from 1905 until 1931.

Existing scholarship on JSS has either focused on the influence of Zionism (Hart 2000) or eugenics and race theory (Efron 1994). This article proposes to relate JSS to the history of economics and statistics. As is suggested by the intellectual profile of the main contributors to the ZDSJ, we argue that JSS was a by-product of the German historical school in economics. Though JSS was intended for a mostly Jewish audience, its organization and methods were clearly inspired by those of German economists.