Suchergebnisse

Harold Hotelling's work, from natural resources economics to optimal taxation, and from spatial to welfare economics, was deeply influenced by his Georgist affiliation and by a Georgist game that we now call Monopoly, which at the time was known as the Landlord's Game. We explore this influence, its history, and the role it played in Hotelling's work and ideas. We show that political beliefs deeply shaped Hotelling's approach to economics and that the rules of the Landlord's Game helped him think about economic mechanisms.

In 1881, Francis Ysidro Edgeworth attempted to provide a solid psychological basis for utility measurement. I will show that Edgeworth's main struggle was to provide a possible measurement scale for a feeling—pleasure—using some kind of physical magnitude that would have allowed both intra and interpersonal comparisons, thus justifying the use of mathematical techniques to answer welfare issues. Edgeworth found inspiration in a similar quest, the invention of temperature, which had permitted the transformation of a feeling, "coldness," into a physical quantity, temperature. Edgeworth faced two kinds of criticisms: concerning the use of psychological notions in economics and concerning the nature of utility itself. Both criticisms were also stated in terms of the thermodynamic metaphor, and the thermometer analogy played a major role in the exchanges. Following those criticisms and his own analysis, Edgeworth would move from a ratio to an ordinal understanding of utility, despite never abandoning the idea that economics should be psychologically grounded.

Managerial sciences are generally considered to be the art of efficiently running business. Their influence, though, extends far beyond the corporate sphere, and they play an important part in public administration and in particular in its dialog with society at large. Here, from the viewpoint of historical institutionalism, we document one of the earliest successful examples of the wider application of management science: the 1914 antitrust rules (the Clayton Antitrust and Federal Trade Commission Acts) from the perspectives of economic scholars as technical experts, the early years of the Wilson administration, and the spheres of business and society. The societal debate about business and efficiency and the successive implementation of scientific managerial ideas in the administrative sphere, saw management science permeate the whole of American society and become an almost irrefutable aspect of everyday life and representations, thereby enabling it to spread well beyond the boundaries of the firm.

Abstract
This article aims to trace the hitherto little-known controversy involving Maurice Allais, François Divisia, Harold Hotelling, and Gérard Debreu in the immediate postwar years. The controversy turned on "dead loss," a measure of the maximum value of available surplus serving as a gauge of economic efficiency and social welfare. The protagonists argued about how it should be expressed mathematically, the hypothesis underpinning it, and its general significance. The paper draws heavily on unpublished materials (letters and notes) to unfold the different stages of the dead loss controversy and shows that it was driven by an intricate interlacing of technical advances in welfare economics with Allais's personal ambition to spearhead the revival of French economics. Eventually, this controversy (and the tense exchange between Allais and Debreu that came with it) proved a remarkable—although tacit—driving force behind Debreu's contributions of the early 1950s.

During his first presidential term, faced with antitrust law reform, Woodrow Wilson had to deal with the reconstitution of conflicting values. These were, on the one hand, the importance of efficiency, guaranteed by the role of experts capable of effectively managing public administration; and, on the other hand, the importance of public and democratic participation, and therefore respect for traditional democratic values. Wilson faced a theoretical impasse in defining concepts such as competition and fairness when developing antitrust laws and had to put his theory of administration to the test. He opted for a pragmatic approach, based on managerial ideas and integrating the figure of the manager, expert in know-how.