Suchergebnisse

It would not be appropriate for me tonight to say anything at all closely related to the work I have been doing or anything that might be thought to be related to government policy. Accordingly, if you find that my remarks are somewhat lacking in content—as you very well may—I hope you will choose to attribute the deficiency, in part at least, to my high regard for the relevance of economics.While I was trying to hit upon a topic which was sufficiently non-technical and general for the occasion, it occurred to me that it might be interesting to look once again at some analytical models of the market, developed over the years by a few of the great economists of the past, and at the characteristics with which, in their theoretical works, they endowed their market operators, to see in what ways and in what degrees they made their markets impersonal, as distinct from self-regulating or automatic; and, then, to consider some of the ways in which general attitudes to the market system may have been influenced by the degree to which markets have been impersonal, and by the kind and extent of the changes that the expansion of the market economy tends to bring about. Primarily I will have in mind modern Western economies.I have called my talk "The Impersonal Market" and I introduce at the outset two quotations which serve to define the sense in which the word "impersonal" is used, and at the same time illustrate two distinct though similar attitudes to the market. One of them comes from a student of law who has extended his interests to include social science generally, and one from an economist of very great distinction.

I have interpreted the rather facetious title given me by the programme committee as permission to speak rather light-heartedly, even irresponsibly, about a few of the changes in the formal methods of analysis in the field of economic theory; to speak of fashions in tools, fashions in gadgets, fashions, if you will forgive me, in models.In the 1920's Professor J. M. Clark supported the thesis that economic theory has developed by replacing worn and outgrown half-truths by new half-truths, that correspond more closely with increased knowledge, changing points of view, and different circumstances. Sir Dennis Robertson reviewed the first volume of the Survey of Contemporary Economics, called his review "A Revolutionist's Handbook," and enumerated seven revolutions; but his phrasing is ironical. In his posthumous work on the History of Economic Analysis Professor Schumpeter has contended, with some success I think, that advances in economic analysis have been more consistent and less fluctuating than changes in the field of economic doctrine, economic systems, or economic thought. Fashions change, then, even in the methods of economic theory, but there is a good deal of continuity too. Many of the most widely useful tools of economic theory have changed very little in the last generation, or even in the last century; some have been in use for many centuries. Nevertheless, there have been many important changes too. Periodically, as attention comes to be focussed on a particular sort of problem, old tools are repaired, polished up, and put in the shop window; or new ones are invented.

The General Theory was written "with the object of persuading economists to re-examine critically certain of their basic assumptions." In accomplishing this purpose it has been completely successful, for it has influenced a very large proportion of the economic writings, not only professional but popular as well, that have been published during the last twelve years. The purpose of this paper is not to attempt to predict the place in the history of economic thought which it will eventually occupy but rather to point out some of the fields in which its effects are already obvious and important. These effects are attributable on the one hand to its timeliness and on the other to its form and content.In one sense its timeliness is obvious: during the twenties and thirties in Great Britain, and during the thirties in many other countries as well, unemployment had been severe and prolonged. But it was timely in a more general and significant sense. Many other shocking things had happened, too, and it may not be out of place to recall a few of the familiar details of the British setting. Britain had come through the war victorious and had proudly hitched the pound sterling to gold at the old par of exchange; but London was no longer supreme in international trade; in the early thirties it had fallen to a discount even in time of peace. Income from foreign property had diminished. International trade was decreasing in importance. Taxes were heavy; landed estates were being dismembered; naval supremacy was impaired; the formerly well disciplined English labourers now well organized had staged a general strike; tastes and technology were changing rapidly. In the east, in Russia, a new economic order had arisen; and in the west the United States had become the dominant power in wealth and productive capacity. In the past these things had occurred within a generation.