Suchergebnisse

Although the English tradition of analytical economics was established at least as long ago as the publication of David Ricardo's Principles in 1817, doubt has never ceased to exist concerning the fruitfulness of abstract and deductive methods in economics. Indeed, although the significant advances made since Ricardo's day were the products of men following closely the theoretical tradition, this doubt has increased rather than lessened. While the established methods weathered the attacks of the historical school during the latter part of the nineteenth century, they were severely shaken by the fundamental questionings of Thorstein Veblen. No one has emerged in our day as a true inheritor of the Veblenian mantle, but the institutionalist school of economics, which acknowledges him as its source of inspiration, is undeniably a very serious critic of orthodox economic theorizing.This paper stems in part from the most recent controversy on the methods and conclusions of economic theory. It attempts to meet the sense of dissatisfaction with which I read the arguments of both attackers and defenders. Perhaps also the fact that during the past few years I have frequently been asked embarrassing questions by students may have something to do with my interest in this problem. I am surely not the only person who has had to contend with the remark that "it looks all right in theory but how does it work out in fact?" For some time now I have been either a consumer or a purveyor of economic theory and I feel motivated to demonstrate (at least to myself) that the activity constitutes productive labour. If that has given this paper the character of rationalization, I hope that it will not be one that cannot be put to good professional service.

The socialist movement in Great Britain has been characterized by a combination of dynamic reformism and liberal reasonableness which is all too frequently lacking in the histories of left-wing movements in other parts of the world. While this may be explained to some extent by the traditional character of English habits of thought and political institutions, one organization is, more than others, responsible for the preservation of the liberal philosophy in an age of great social change. The Fabian Society came upon the scene when the economic foundations of that change were already well established. The development of the new industrialism had shown inequities and injustices which called for radical measures of economic reform. Yet while this economic change had been taking place, political institutions had undergone a considerable measure of liberalization. The latter was a development highly valued by the economic revolutionaries, and the Fabian Society was, from the very first, an effort to combine the two desiderata—to change the economic structure of society while preserving the democratic political achievements so newly gained and so highly prized.The important early Fabian writings which dealt with matters of abstract economic theory were motivated by the belief that the great unsolved questions of the day were the economic. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, from 1870 on, the economic world was stricken with controversy. The placid perfection of the Ricardian classicism had been shattered by the frontal attack of the marginalists and the usurpation of Marx.