The differences between the theories of displacement and of compensation of machinery are related not only to issues regarding employment and income distribution but also to the dif-ferent perspectives on the market economy. Neoclassical as well as contemporary economists criticise Ricardoʼs machinery theory in the third edition of his Principles （1817）, which casts serious doubt on the efﬁciency of a market economy. The compensation theory advocated by economists, such as McCulloch, was in accordance with the neoclassical criticism of Ricardo, wherein they perceive a market economy to be an efﬁcient one. The development of the com-pensation theory has rarely been studied so far, although its development can be observed in the same way as that of the displacement theory.
This study examines the formation of McCullochʼs compensation theory in his debate with Ricardo and its relevance to the neoclassical criticism of Ricardoʼs machinery theory. McCulloch insisted on the general beneﬁts of machinery from the beginning as stated in
ʻTaxation and the Corn-Lawsʼ （1820）. The basic framework of McCullochʼs compensation theory emerged in ʻEffects of Machinery and Accumulationʼ （1821）, in which he argued that workers displaced by the introduction of machinery could be employed again owing to the expansion of production, which would be stimulated by the growing demand for commodities caused by the fall in prices. In the correspondence with Ricardo, after the publication of the third edition of Ricardoʼs Principles, McCulloch withdrew his criticism that Ricardo had accepted the possibility of a general glut and focused his criticism on the decrease in gross produce. McCulloch assumes that in arguing this, the maximum amount of a product could necessarily be achieved in the competitive market under a given condition.
JEL classiﬁcation numbers: B 12, B 31, O 33.
This study discusses the content of the “Wisconsin Idea.” It attempts to examine John R. Commonsʼs view on this idea and his inﬂuence on several social reforms, and it tracks how an active role played by economists led to the application of this idea to the American social reforms.
Commons took part in the social gospel movement under the guidance of Richard T. Ely. As a member of this movement, Commons worked towards the achievement of social and political reforms rooted in Christianity and social sciences. According to Frederic C. Howe （1912）, in the 1910s, Wisconsin was regarded as an American state likely to accept German social reforms. During this Progressive Era, in Wisconsin, several social and political reforms were executed based on the “Wisconsin Idea,” which was named such by Charles McCarthy （1912）. The idea was developed by several brain trusts under the governor Robert M.La Follette. As a member of one of these brain trusts, Commons was also involved in sev-eral social reforms. Owing to his experience not only as a former social gospeler but also as a member of such a brain trust, Commons attempted to improve social welfare through the en-actment of legal rules based on cooperation between the state university and the state govern-ment. Without this cooperation, it would not have been possible to establish the comprehen-sive social legislation in Wisconsin.
Commonsʼs analysis reveals that, through the expansion of university extension pro-grams, it was possible to enhance the professional ethics of workers and improve the social welfare of their community, and that there was a need for the associated economists to recog-nize the permanent interests of the nation to adopt appropriate social reforms. Therefore, it would not be an exaggeration to state that Commons was the very embodiment of the “Wis-consin Idea.”
JEL classiﬁcation numbers: B 15, I 38, N 93.
This study clariﬁes the main features of G. P. Scropeʼs political economy.
What makes his work distinctive is his idea that the laissez-faire principle is justiﬁed only under certain conditions. On the one hand, Scropeʼs economics is ﬁrmly grounded in the “principle of freedom” （free competition or free markets）. On the other hand, based on the natural rights theory, he maintains that the principle of freedom rests only on the assumption that it is expedient for general interests. Whenever private property is seen as inconsistent with the welfare of society, ʻsociety is justiﬁed-nay, bound-to modify it.ʼ
The Irish land question and the poverty resulting from it is where Scrope most clearly presents his criticism of laissez-faire. Not only does he propose introducing （and later, im-proving） poor laws in Ireland, but also suggests that the government should purchase tracts of privately-owned lands, improve them, and sell or lease them as small farms. According to Scrope, land ownership in Ireland is ʻcontrary to the interests and natural rights of the com-munity,ʼ and, the government should exercise its ʻstrict rightʼ to recover waste land.
However, Scrope never directs his criticism of laissez-faire towards the activities of cap-italists. For him, a capitalist mode of production is the key to civilisation and economic growth. He explicitly criticises Hodgskinʼs argument that labourers should own all their pro-duction. His abstinence theory justiﬁes the rights of capitalists to earn proﬁts, and his attack on currency policy takes the readersʼ attention away from the hostile relationship between capitalists and labourers.
It is important to distinguish where his criticism of laissez-faire is applied and where it isnʼt. It is misleading to emphasise only one aspect of his argument as this is paramount to generalising his argument.
JJEL classiﬁcation numbers: B 12, B 31.
With the continuing publication of the complete works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels （Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe, MEGA）, a bulk of new material concerning Marxʼs studies of economic crises has been made available-with further releases expected to follow. These publications have revealed Marxʼs enormous efforts to examine in detail every economic cri-sis through which he lived. The most prominent examples are the three Books of Crisis （Kris-enhefte）, which he compiled in 1857-58 amidst the ﬁrst truly global economic crisis. This paper sets out to, ﬁrst, provide an overview of new MEGA-texts regarding Marxʼs studies of contemporaneous 19th century revulsions. In the main part, a closer look will be taken at the origin of Marxʼs crisis studies in the 1840s. A comparison between his notes on James Millʼs Elements of Political Economy, written in the Paris Notebooks （1844）, and his excerpts from John Stuart Millʼs Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, taken in his Manchester Notebooks （1845）, reveals Marxʼs changing stance on classical political econo-myʼs ʻgeneral glut controversy,ʼ i.e., the debate over the （im）possibility of overproduction cri-ses in commodity-producing societies. In between his stays in Paris and Manchester, Marx took extensive notes on the works of Simonde de Sismondi in his Brussels Notebooks (1845）, which played a major role in his break from anthropological-essentialist thinking.
JEL classiﬁcation numbers: B 00, B 51, E 32
This paper presents a new interpretation of Ricardo’s international trade theory. It shows that
Ricardo’s value theory in his Principles can be understood exclusively as the cost-of-production
theory of value, which integrates the domestic value theory and international value theory,
requisitely taking into consideration changes in the value of money when it is applied to
the analysis of international exchange.
In Section II, we critically re-examine the standard interpretation of Ricardo’s trade theory
in the so-called ‘Ricardian Model’ in textbooks today. Based on the concepts of ‘comparative
advantage’ and ‘gains from trade’ within the two-country two-commodity framework, we
show that it is a distorted interpretation, which originated from J. S. Mill’s arguments and
established through the debate between Viner and Haberler, in the opposite direction of
Ricardo’s original value theory. In Section III, we present that Ricardo consistently adopted
the cost-of-production theory of value, which is valid not only for domestic, but also international,
exchange based on the concept of natural price, with the so-called ‘labour theory of
value’ being merely a subset rule in the analysis of domestic exchange. We then show that
Ricardo’s original value theory inevitably takes into consideration the differences and adjustments
in the value of money in international exchange, in the analysis of international exchange.
Finally, we will briefly review that Ricardo was heading in the right direction towards
today’s theory of international trade including intermediate goods.
JEL classification numbers: B 12, B 17.
Introduction by Shoichi Hashimoto
Shiro Sugiharaʼs “Nature, Human Beings, and Labour,” translated here into Eng-lish, was originally published in Japanese in J. S. Miru to Gendai （J. S. Mill and the Present Day）, 1980, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, and reprinted in Volume 2, 2003, of The Works of Shiro Sugihara, 4 Volumes, 2003-, Tokyo: Fujiwara Sho-ten.
Shiro Sugihara （1920-2009） began his study of the history of economic thought with a comparison of Karl Marx and J. S. Mill. While he does not ex-plicitly mention it in any of his writings, in this he may have been inﬂuenced by his mentor, Kei Shibata （1902-1986）.
Shibata had been attempting to further develop Marxʼs theory of reproduction using the methods of general equilibrium theory. While carefully tracing the process of development of Marxʼs economic thought, by explicating Marxʼs crit-icism of Mill Sugihara played a major role in the post-war Japanese movement to re-evaluate Mill, who had historically received only low appraisal. Sugihara presented Millʼs stance of engaging with contemporary economic issues in a positive light, an approach that is given full expression in the essay translated here. While Japanese readers would not require any explanation regarding Sawako Ariyoshi （1931-1984）, the novelist who appears at the start of the es-say, she was a writer who raised new social issues such as synthetic pollution, food damage, issues related to the elderly, and so on, that have since become common knowledge, posing them to society in a series of works written in rapid succession that all went on to become bestsellers. As a result of the nature of her writing she was ignored by various literary awards.