Suchergebnisse

This article analyzes an early and relatively little known debate on the role of social interdependencies in consumption and their implications for economic theory. The debate began in the pages of the Economic Journal when, in 1892, Alfred Marshall's student Henry Cunynghame addressed the consequences that an increase in the supply of goods might have for individual utility when this includes external effects such as a desire for display and distinction. Such interdependencies in consumption were also taken very seriously by A. C. Pigou who, in successive articles in the same journal (1903, 1910, 1913), explored in great detail the impact of third-party consumption on an individual's utility function and, potentially, on social welfare. In fact, in such cases, the derivation of the market demand curve, and even the very notion of consumer surplus, seemed to become problematic. Both Marshall and F. Y. Edgeworth remained skeptical toward the theoretical treatment of externalities in consumption, offering reasons of both practical and analytical relevance. In the same period in the Economic Journal, Caroline Foley (1893) analyzed the phenomenon of social interrelations among consumers in a more evolutionary perspective, emphasizing in addition more general possibilities in interdependencies, including change and innovation. What is of interest in this debate is that it was the first attempt in the history of economic analysis to examine the analytical consequences that considerations of social interdependencies in consumption may have for economic theory. These related to the drawing of the market demand curve, the measurement of consumer surplus, and the more general issue of how to deal with time and change in economic models. These considerations, however, proved difficult to be addressed with the then available economic tools and this, in turn, led to their being simply shelved. We conclude by noting that the participants in this debate cast the problem of social interrelations in consumption almost exclusively in terms of positional rivalry and emulation. This overshadowed the creative dimension and positive externalities that can arise through such interrelations. Foley's more historical perspective has the merit of highlighting precisely this dimension.

In this paper we address the subject of Keynes as a speculator. We look first at the primary sources of information, which are in the form of unpublished letters and broker's statements. Secondly, we look at the theory Keynes sparingly presented in his writings, but which nevertheless is grounded on his first-hand knowledge of speculative behavior. Thirdly, we examine the focus on speculation in commodities, which had great weight in his portfolio, and have chosen a particular commodity -wheat- for our investigation. In particular, we examine some of Keynes's dealings in wheat futures with the aim of shedding light on the underlying investment strategy.

Cambridge as a geographical reference often crops up in the characterisation of the economic theories and approaches that developed in Cambridge (UK) between the 1920s and the 1960s with the contribution of economists who did not always share the same interests, background or attitudes, but who all lived and worked – for considerable periods of time – in that particular corner of the world.In order to reconstruct the Cambridge of those years and explore the space it represented for economics we have selected a group of economists and a span of time – essentially between the two wars, with a few encroachments in the years following on the death of Keynes. Cambridge was not only a place, but also a play of magnetic forces, drawing together and driving apart, where ideas emerged from an environment formed through intense human and professional relations, a well defined cultural tradition and a way of its own of organising work and study. We present the dramatis personae and the background to their actions, and consider the characteristics of intellectual and personal communication on the basis of which we are led to define the Cambridge economists examined more as a `group' than a school.