This paper investigates the relationship between home economics and new household eco-nomics. In particular, I consider what is “new” in new household economics from the feminist economics perspective. Home economics was established in the 1920s and 1930s by Hazel Kyrk, Margaret Reid, and Elizabeth Hoyt, while new household economics was established in the 1960s by Jacob Mincer, Theodore Schultz, and Gary Becker. Before the 1960s, main-stream economics concentrated on production for the market. Later, the mainstream economi-cs of the family culminated in Beckerʼs new household economics. The family, within which unpaid labor is carried out mostly by women, again became an important topic in feminist economics in the 1990s. In this paper, I focus on the theoretical meaning of unpaid labor in these two Chicago schools, home economics and new household economics. I insist that new household economics is not “new” in terms of its approach and method. Rather, its novelty is in the domain of the application of standard microeconomics to the household. I ﬁrstly ex-plore the feminist economics perspective. Secondly, I discuss the theoretical meaning of the analysis of unpaid labor in home economics. Thirdly, I examine new household economics from the methodological point of view and policy implications. I then conclude by discussing the relationship between these two Chicago schools.
JEL classiﬁcation numbers: B 00, B41, B54.
Turgot is known not only as a physiocrat, but also as the author of Valeurs et Monnaies （c1769?）, in which he discusses the subjective theory of value: this work earned him a pre-eminent position in the ﬁeld. Prior to Turgotʼs discussion, Graslin presented more detailed accounts of the subjective theory of value, providing logical arguments against physiocracy. In his Essai Analitique sur la Richesse et sur lʼImpôt （1767）, Graslin refuted physiocratic doctrines, especially the concepts of net product and productive/non-productive classes. While initially critical of Graslinʼs assertations, Turgot later adopted his views in Valeurs et Monnaies. Although Turgot contributed to the ﬁeld of economics, he provided only an intro-duction to marginal utility, equivalent to Galianiʼs signs in Della Moneta （1751）, because Turgot could not totally abandon physiocratic concepts. However, Graslin proposed that all economic activities and national policies should be considered in the context of the subjec-tive theory of value. More fundamentally, he assumed that human capacity for awareness of desires and needs has always been constant and showed that an increase in the amount of ob-jects would cause a decrease in their value. Preceding studies consider that Graslin expressed only average value and that he did not show the basis of marginal utility. Although, in his de-scriptions of value, there were possibilities to mislead, it is quite possible to interpret him a forerunner of the marginal utility theory and thus distinguish him from other authors of his era.
JEL classiﬁcation numbers: B 11, B31.
It is widely recognized that Edmund Burke, in his Reﬂections on the Revolution in France, claimed that the ancient constitution of England, chivalry, and the Christian religion had con-tributed much to the formation of the civilized states of Britain and Europe at large. This arti-cle shows that a distinct perspective of the history of civilization existed in the early writings of Burke, An Essay towards an Abridgment of the English History and Fragment: An Essay towards an History of the Laws of England, and also places the ideas of Burke in these works in the context of the early modern history of English historiography. The early writings of Burke clearly assert that throughout history, a civilization could be and had actually been shaped in England through numerous international exchanges between England and other countries. In doing so, his idea seems to have included a perception of empire, which was fur-ther advanced in his later political works. Burkeʼs ideas on conquest and international ex-changes are related to the views on English history developed by the seventeenth-century scholars Spelman and Brady in their works on feudal law; however, Burke was different from these scholars in considering conquest as a powerful driving force behind the formation of the English civilization. Although other historians of the early modern period had held simi-lar ideas about conquest, Burke distinguished himself from them by putting forward a gener-alized model of the civilizing process closely linked to various types of international ex-changes.
JEL classiﬁcation numbers: B 31, N 01.
Introduction by Hideo Tanaka
The late professor Masaharu Tanaka （1925-2000）, president of JSHET from 1985-86, edited The Comparative Study of Liberal Economic Thought, a book published in 1997 by The University of Nagoya Press. He wrote a long preface to it, and this English article is a translation of that essay.
During his two years as a junior researcher under Michio Morishima at Kyoto University, Tanaka began his studies with Max Weberʼs Wissenschafts-lehre before moving on to the study of 18th century French social thought and later Marx, Lenin and Prehanov. His Doctoral Dissertation was on the History of Russian Economic Thought, including the Narodniks, Marxists, and other movements. He became a professor of economic theory after its publication in 1967. With the decline of socialism, the focus of the economics academy in Ja-pan gradually shifted from Marxist political economy to Anglo-American eco-nomics.
Tanaka and his study group （his former students and other scholars） start-ed the “society for the study of methodology of social sciences” in 1980, and continued to hold monthly meetings until his death. As mentor of this society, Tanaka read various books concerning liberalism and other topics. He found Hayekʼs work important, and translated several of his essays in collaboration with his student Hideo Tanaka, publishing them as Market, Knowledge, and Liberty in 1986, a book that became a forerunner of the “Hayek boom” in Japan.
A brief yet hopefully exhaustive sketch of recent studies on Keynes brings us four concluding remarks. First, thanks to professionalisation of the history of economic thought, the 14 academic journals （their abbreviations are shown be-low）, at least, are ready to accept articles on historical and theoretical perspec-tives of Keynesʼs ideas. This directly leads to an increase in academic papers （in English） in quantity, and consequently, to better understandings of Keynes in quality. However, conﬁning to narrow academic circles could also bring a fall of inﬂuential powers in the history of economic thought, despite of its role to bridge both among other disciplines one another and academia with ordinary people.
Second, one of the most conspicuous characteristics of the research trends is to emphasise Keynesʼs multiple phases of international relations in practice and in theory. These cover not only the international monetary system but also corporative designs to balance both among national and international interests and among just, fair world and economic efﬁciency towards a peaceful world. Third, Keynesʼs ideas provoke current economists to study on recent fashionable themes such as on happiness, behavioural economics, neuroscience, and psycho-logical economics. Among them, the relation between agents on a micro level and economic phenomena on a macro level is the most difﬁcult theme to solve. Nevertheless, Keynesʼs insight into the organic whole in macroeconomics can serve as a clue. Fourth, strict interpretations of original texts are necessary, sometimes by way of unpublished primary sources, to extract the relevant usage of economics. The history of economic thought serves this end. In the near fu-ture, historians of economics can even apply a new method, such as text-mining and handling big data, to this academic area.
Judging from both the numerous articles mentioned above, and the Keynes Societies of Germany and Japan that were established in 2003 and in 2011 re-spectively, studies on Keynes seem to be more active than before. It is, neverthe-less, questionable whether the mere efforts by historians of economics could reach economic theorists along with general readers.
I would like to end this review article by citing OʼDonnell （2011）, which raises three fundamental questions: （i）Why is Keynes so different from ortho-dox economists?; （ii）Why is Keynes more difﬁcult to understand than ortho-dox economists?; and （iii）Why is Keynes more appealing than orthodox econ-omists? Although OʼDonnell （2011, 10-11） answers these questions, it is now important to tackle the three knots, regardless of historians of economics, theo-retical economists, or even general readers.
If I were asked to choose just two words to characterize Keynesʼs thought as a whole, they would be reason and humanity. （OʼDonnell 2011, 11）