Léon Walras was a truly revolutionary economist. Not only did he leave a lasting mark on economic doctrine participating in the Marginalist Revolution, which supplanted the labor theory of value of the classical school, but he also contributed to major changes in economic methodology as being one of the first and most ardent promoters of the use of mathematics in economics. For an actor who played such a great role in the development of economics, how did he conceive his scientific endeavor? This question can be broken down into two different but related questions: First, how did he know that he had found true scientific laws? What was his theory of knowledge? Is it best described as empiricist (claiming that all knowledge comes from experience) or idealist (claiming that reason can achieve knowledge independently of experience)? And, second, what relation did his writings on pure theory bear with his policy prescriptions? Was there a normative bias in Léon Walras's methodology, i.e., were his positive statements molded by his normative inclinations?

This last set of questions has generated much debate, given that Walras actively fought for scientific rigor while not refraining from defending his views on the desired social order. For W. Jaffé, who unearthed his correspondence, a careful study of primary evidence shows that Walras's conception of justice heavily influenced his search for pure truth. The Éléments d'économie politique pure (Éléments), “appears, on the surface, as a competely wert-frei” system, but it is nevertheless “inform[ed]” by “implicit moral convictions” (Jaffé 1977, p. 371). However, D. A. Walker has strongly attacked Jaffe's allegation that Walras's theory of general equilibrium was deliberately constructed as a normative scheme, pointing to Walras's “careful distinctions between normative and positive subject matters” (Walker 1984, p. 466).

This paper re-examines Dennis Robertson’s ‘real’ business cycle (RBC) theory outlined in his 1915 A Study in Industrial Fluctuation. Even if, for Robertson, cycles find their origin and respond to oscillations in entrepreneurs’ “rational inducement” to invest, in opposition to RBC models in which every outcome is by construction an equilibrium outcome, Robertson discusses in a traditional way the short-run consequences of such exogenous technological shocks. There are no intertemporal equilibrium phenomena in the sense of the RBC approach; cycle theory is organized, for Robertson, around a Marshallian-defined center of gravity (or long-run equilibrium state of rest). For him, the real forces are represented by the gestation period of investment, but also by investment’s durability, its imperfect divisibility, and, allied with these, its intractability. These features of investment lead to excessive outlays upon capital investment, which ultimately depresses their marginal productivity. The inevitable and rational result is a downturn in the capital goods industries and the onset of a cycle.

Oddly enough, my first clear recollection of an encounter with an economic proposition dates from the age of six or seven, when my father (who died suddenly from the pneumonia when I was eight) casually remarked that the Colman Mustard Company derived most of its profits from the residue people left on their plates. Unfortunately at the time I did not appreciate the analytical subtlety of this observation. Nor, I suspect, did my father, who probably only wanted to particularize the familiar maxim: waste not, want not. Nevertheless, the point evidently stayed in my mind, though I cannot claim it as the origin of my subsequent fascination with economics. The evolution of my attitudes to economics will tie considered later. First, however, let me briefly sketch some relevant features of my personal and socio-economic background, which may shed some light on my subsequent intellectual activities.

The aim of this essay is to assess James Medbery MacKaye’s contribution to socialist thought during the Progressive Era. Largely forgotten today, MacKaye proposed a special version of socialism, which he called “Pantocracy,” based on a peculiar blend of utilitarian and eugenic assumptions. Specifically, MacKaye held that biological fitness mapped to the capacity for happiness—biologically superior individuals possess a greater capacity for happiness—and saw the eugenic breeding of “a being or race of beings capable in the first place of happiness” as a possibility open by the advent of Pantocracy. Incidentally, this essay provides further evidence that the influence of eugenic and racialist beliefs upon the American Progressive Era political economy was so deep-rooted and pervasive that it did cut across traditional ideological boundaries.

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.

In his lectures of 1978–79, published posthumously as The Birth of Biopolitics, Michel Foucault addressed versions of liberalism in which an invisible market appears immune to government intervention. Among the thinkers discussed were Adam Smith and Adam Ferguson. This essay offers critical reflections on Foucault’s description of Smith as emphasizing the invisibility of the economy, as well as on Foucault’s interpretation of the “invisible hand” and his ascription of egoism to Smith’s economic agents. Foucault also appeals to Ferguson’s notion of civil society to resolve incompatibilities between economic agents and the sovereign. However, Ferguson’s theory of society does not provide the assistance that Foucault thinks it does. Moreover, like Smith, Ferguson holds no egoistic view of economic motivation. Nonetheless, and surprisingly, Foucault would have found enticing Ferguson’s use of conjectural history, with its appeal to the unintended, contingent, and conflictual basis of social change.

The article contrasts an intellectual history perspective on the transition from classical to neo-classical economics with doctrinal accounts of the marginal revolution. Marshall’s opinions on the mixture of theoretical, methodological, and moral and political elements involved in the generational divide shows that more was at stake than accounts in which theory alone is stressed suggest. It is also argued that in other respects less was at stake: drawing a sharp dividing line between pre- and post-marginal treatments of policy issues does not do justice to underlying continuities in the empirical utilitarian tradition. The article is dedicated to the memory of R. D. C. (Bob) Black, whose work on Jevons illustrates the benefits of an intellectual historian’s approach to this significant transition in economic thinking.

Economic analyses of American Civil War causation typically focus on longue durée structural arguments neglecting specific context and contemporary observers’ predictions about disunion’s effects. This article suggests secession heightened concern about government solvency and intensified a conversation about the nature of American inter- and intra-national trade, one hinging on ideas about relative dependence and positioning within the world economy. Deep South secessionists rested their claims on a cotton-centric economic worldview, trusting that their coveted commodity could finance independence and attract foreign partners. Pro-compromise northerners greatly feared that possibility. Less compromising Republican political economists countered that secession would reveal northern economic superiority and the South’s underlying weakness, eventually leading to voluntary reunion. Though competing sides envisioned peaceful pathways towards their ends, the actions of insolvent central governments—who feared that any compromise on contested forts and revenue ports would undermine the confidence of underwriters—militated against these imagined peaceful ends.

In his article published in JHET in 2022, Vincent Carret (2022a) criticizes our work. In footnote 19, pages 630–631, he claims that our result “is based on a mistaken interpretation of the paragraph at the bottom of p. 191 of Frisch (1933).” He then states that we “take to mean that the coefficient of each cycle in the general sum of solutions is arbitrary, while … these coefficients [depended] on initial conditions and the parameters of the system.” The present rejoinder aims at rebutting Carret’s allegation of mistaken interpretation in our work. We demonstrate that his statements are based on a misunderstanding of Frisch’s econometric model and approach. Then, we show that Carret’s results are not supported by the demonstration he claims to have made, and that he misrepresents our arguments.

The evolution of Ferdinando Galiani’s thought toward social mathematic has been neglected by scholars, and his attempt to establish political arguments on the analytical basis remains unexplored. The non-systematic nature of Galiani’s intuitions, due to his laziness, largely justifies this underestimation of his scientific program. This paper intends to show that the mature abbé Galiani follows an intellectual itinerary autonomous and parallel to that followed by Marquis de Condorcet in the same years. The anti-Physiocratique querelle represents Galiani’s methodological maturation. In contrast with Physiocratic economic doctrine, based on the primacy of deductive methodology, Galiani claims for economic science the realism of circumstance against aprioristic axiomatic hypotheses and rationalist generalizations. Galiani’s project, substantially similar to Marquis de Condorcet’s approach to social science, can be defined as Newtonian social mathematics opposed to Physiocratic Cartesian social mathematics.