Suchergebnisse

This article is not the work of an expert on the period in question (see Robinson, 1971; Rheinwald, 1977); rather it is a commentary on a book whose half‐century has just passed almost unnoticed. In a sense the argument involves a further visit to what J.A. Schumpeter once described as the "lumber room" of historical knowledge, although this particular visit is prompted neither by nostalgia nor piety, but rather by the conviction that Chamberlin still has much to teach those interested in the theory of the firm and in the wider area of industrial economics. The article is also prompted by the conviction that the conventional textbook accounts of Chamberlin's work have introduced misleading simplifications in pursuing the qualities of coherence and precision in the presentation of ideas.

This article does not constitute a commentary on George Shackle either as an economist or as an historian. Rather it sets out to explain the reference to Smith which was introduced to the foreword of the 1983 edition of The Years of High Theory, and further to elaborate some striking similarities between two philosophers whose writings on the origin of theory are separated by more than 200 years.

The Preliminary Argument The fifteen years following the end of the Great War saw considerable activity amongst economists concerned with competitive structures and the "firm". As has been argued elsewhere much of this work may be interpreted as an attack on Marshall's treatment of the subject with a view to replacing it by a more "rigorous" and formal analysis. E. H. Chamberlin to a very large extent stands apart from these developments, as he makes plain in the "Origin and Early Development of Monopolistic Competition Theory" (1961). Serious work on his thesis apparently began in 1924, was largely completed in 1926 and the study filed in the following year. This means that Chamberlin's "discovery" of the curves of marginal cost and marginal revenue was made quite independently of his English and German colleagues. Further, as Chamberlin himself made clear, the thesis had no link either with Sraffa or the Symposium of 1931: "Nor did the Book itself attack Marshall…on any of the issues there involved" (ibid., p. 532). Indeed, he always insisted that his work was an attack "not on Marshall, but on the theory of perfect competition" (ibid., p. 540). He might have added that Monopolistic Competition is essentially Marshallian both in its style of reasoning and in the pre‐occupation with realism; a pre‐occupation which led Chamberlin to play down the operational significance of the marginal curves while recognising their importance in a technical sense (1957, pp. 274–76).