Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Journal of the History of Economic Thought
  4. Most cited
Journal Home
Refine listing
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

Most cited

This page lists all time most cited articles for this title. Please use the publication date filters on the left if you would like to restrict this list to recently published content, for example to articles published in the last three years. The number of times each article was cited is displayed to the right of its title and can be clicked to access a list of all titles this article has been cited by.

Contents

Page 43 of 44

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • The Contextual Sources of Slutsky's Effect: 1915, 1927, and After

  • Vincent Barnett
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 June 2009, pp. 403-416

  • E. E. Slutsky's enduring but enigmatic fame as an economist far outweighs the limited understanding of most interested scholars as to his very productive life and unusually wide range of research interests. To begin to compensate for this deficit a previousJHET article entitled “E.E. Slutsky: Mathematical Statistician, Economist, and Political Economist?” provided some biographical information on Slutsky's life, together with an account of a few of his little-known contributions to political economy (see Barnett, 2004b). In this current article the inception and immediate influence of Slutsky's two most famous papers in economics written in 1915 and 1927 are considered directly, in addition to further discussion of relevant aspects of Slutsky's life and times. The full significance of the content of the two groundbreaking papers will not be discussed in detail, as this has been adequately covered elsewhere (see for example Barnett 2006, Weber 1999, and Klein 1999). Rather, an attempt will be made to provide a historical and intellectual context for Slutsky's two most important contributions in economics, given that the circumstances surrounding their composition are not sufficiently well known among economists in the West.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • THE TRANSITION FROM PIGOU’S IDEAS ON ROAD PRICING TO THEIR APPLICATION

  • Kenneth Button
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    30 June 2020, pp. 417-438

  • A century ago Arthur Pigou published The Economics of Welfare. Within this volume are a few lines relating to the pricing of traffic congestion. Over the years, these lines have attracted the attention and thoughts of some of the leading economists of their day. These have included Knight, Clapham, and Robertson in the 1920s; Kahn and Viner in the 1930s; Ellis and Fellner in the 1940s; and Buchanan, Vickrey, Solow, Friedman, Walters, Demsetz, Newbery, and Allais in the post-World War II period. Here, I look at the academic arguments from the 1920s concerning how roads should be priced and by whom. I then move to consider the continuation of the intellectual debates after World War II and their implications for policy design and implementation. Finally, I briefly look at the extent to which some of the existing road congestion pricing systems meet the requirements of the economic theory.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • HET volume 16 issue 2 Back matter

  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 June 2009, pp. b1-b4
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • Cited by 1

  • Where Else Would you Look? Constructivism and the Historiography of Economics

  • Ross B. Emmett
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 June 2009, pp. 261-266

  • Eleven years ago, at my first HES conference, I attended a session on the historiography of economics. In my naiveté and brashness (not a good combination!) as a grad student, I asked why so much of the conversation about how to do historical work in economics was dominated by reference to methodological categories provided by philosophers of science like Lakatos, Popper, and Kuhn. I enjoyed my own investigations in the philosophy of economics, and was starting to write about Frank Knight, who was certainly not naive philosophically, but I wanted a different reference point as a historian of economics. I remember one member of the panel looking at me somewhat puzzled and asking, “Where else would you look?”

    Today, we gather to reflect, once again, on the historiography of economics. This time, we are asked to reflect on a new reference point for our work: the sociology of scientific knowledge or science studies. Jan Golinski has provided us with an excellent survey of work in this field, and a synopsis of its relevance over the past fifteen years or so to the history of the natural sciences. His book is not a rallying cry for constructivism, but rather a careful analysis of the benefits and costs to historians of science if they choose to adopt constructivist techniques.

  • Cited by 1

  • BUILDING INTEGRATED MODELS IN ENVIRONMENTAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE ECONOMICS: THE CASE OF GORDON’S 1954 FISHERY MODEL

  • Baptiste Parent, Lauriane Mouysset, Antoine Missemer, Harold Levrel
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    16 August 2023, pp. 117-139
    • Article
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Environmental and natural resource economics lies inherently at the interface between economic and natural dynamics (e.g., geological constraints, climate change, biodiversity evolution). Building models in that field often means building integrated models, calling on knowledge and methods from economics and physics, climatology, biology, or ecology. Howard Scott Gordon’s 1954 article on fishery economics is considered to be seminal in the history of bioeconomic modeling, integrating biological and economic variables in a microeconomic model. Yet the precise role played by biology in Gordon’s initial work remains unclear. On the basis of archival material and thorough analysis of Gordon’s early research, this paper examines Gordon’s model building and his persistent oscillation between two objectives—the production of a heuristic economic model with standard assumptions, and the conception of a predictive policy tool relevant from a fishery-biology standpoint—and how he finally favored the first over the second. Moreover, contrary to received wisdom, we show that it was not Gordon but biologist Milner B. Schaefer who transformed Gordon’s model into an integrated model. These results shed new light not only on Gordon’s 1954 contribution but also on a whole tradition of integrated environmental and natural resource economics models, based on his work.

  • Cited by 1

  • THE MADMAN AND THE ECONOMIST(S): GEORGES BATAILLE AND FRANÇOIS PERROUX AS FRENCH CRITIQUES OF THE MARSHALL PLAN

  • Raphaël Fèvre
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    18 April 2022, pp. 344-369

  • 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.

  • Cited by 1
  • Cited by 1

  • A Comment on Philip Mirowski's Analysis of Utility Theory

  • Claude Mouchot
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 June 2009, pp. 299-309

  • In chapter 5 of his book More Heat Than Light (1989), Philip Mirowski mentions that the first neoclassical (W. S. Jevons, Leon Walras, Vilfredo Pareto, and Irving Fisher, but with the notable exception of Carl Menger) all referred to the analogy between their formulations and those of the physics of their day. Then he asserts, going beyond their statements on this matter, that the early neoclassical model was purely an analogical transposition of the model of the field theory of physics of the 1860s, which he calls “protoenergetics.” The latter implies a subject matter that is a mechanics of equilibrium and of reversible phenomena, and in which there is no question of the appearance of the notion of entropy.

  • Cited by 1

  • Demand Conditions and the Interpretation of Ricardo

  • Giovanni A. Caravale
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    11 June 2009, pp. 229-247

  • Kenneth J. Arrow's recent article on Ricardian theory (Arrow 1991) represents the occasion for a renewed discussion of the basic building blocks of the classics' analytical scheme and of the role of demand conditions in this context. Arrow's argument pivots around two ideas: that Ricardo's theory is built without any reference to demand, and that the role of demand can be conceived of only within the logical context of neoclassical demand functions, which are absent in Ricardo, thus making his theoretical scheme irremediably weak. These ideas form the basis of a drastically dichotomized representation on the part of Arrow of current interpretations of Ricardo. On the one hand are the neoclassical-type views, epitomized by his own position, with their emphasis on the allocation problem; on the other hand are the purely cost-oriented neo-Ricardian interpretations, with their strongly Marxist ideological bias.

  • Cited by 1

Page 43 of 44