Annals of the Society for the History of Economic Thought

Leontief's input-output analysis and Sraffa's production model are, I think, founded on Quesnay's idea in the Tableau économique that is ‘the original picture of the system of production and consumption as a circular process’.
This paper is intended as an attempt to rethink Quesnay's Tableau économique—centered in the «zig-zag» and the «formule»—through the looking glass of the intersectoral approach, with adequate reference to my old paper of the Tableau (1960), and in comparison with the recent Italian article: G. Candela and V. Denicolò, Coerenza statica ed incoerenza dinamica dei «Tableau Écomonique», Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Ecomonia, Anno XLI (Nuova Serie), 1984, pp. 605-637.
Sections II, III and IV of the paper are devoted mainly to throwing light on the parallels and distinctions between the «zig-zag» and the «formule» in the static and dynamic context of the Tableau économique. Section V then explains the analytical relationship between Quesnay's Tableau économique and the Sraffian production model in which is attempted the modern formulation of the Ricardian theory of value and distribution in the framework of the Quesnay-type circular process of production with a surplus.

View full abstract

There are some types of money market models in the history of economic theory. They are the quantity theory of money, the Keynesian approach and the Banking School theory. The object of the present article is to place Thornton in the proper position among those theories.
His theory is included in the quantity theory. It is true that he instists on the theory in his Paper Credit, but he also mentions the effect of money on the real variables in an economy. However, that is true of other quantity theorists, such as Hume and Fisher. They recognize that changes in the quantity of money affect output and employment in the short run, while emphasizing that the price level is determined only by the money supply in the long run. Therefore, Thornton is in the same camp as they.
He also belongs to the Wicksellian stream, which begins with Thornton, followed by Ricardo, Joplin and so on, and then reaches to Wicksell. According to the argument, changes in the money stock originate from a disparity between the rate of interest and the rate of profit.

View full abstract

This paper expounds the characteristics of both D. Ricardo's and K. Wicksell's theory of monetary economy. By comparing them, we find a clue to the re-examination of the history of macroeconomics from classical economists to J. M. Keynes.
Wicksell, a pioneer of 20th century's macroeconomics, had a great respect for Ricardo's view of prices, and regarded it as the starting point of his own theory, in spite of his several criticisms of it. Indeed, Ricardo's view anticipated that of Wicksell more than Wicksell realized. We can cofirm this in Ricardo's comment on the relation of interest to price movements and the role of the banking system in it. While Wicksell is often referred to as a forerunner of Keynes, we are apt to take Ricardo merely as a proponent of Say's law and quantity theory of money, and hence the founder of ‘classics’ as Keynes said. But, after the above consideration, we ought to revalue Ricardo's view, and place it in the origin of the stream of thought which developed, via Wicksell's theory of price fluctuations, into Keynes's General Theory.

View full abstract

Show abstractHide abstract

This article intends to reconsider the relationship between stoic philosophy and the theory of self-command in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
Hitherto, in Western studies, it has been thought that Smith had treated stoic philosophy consistently from the first edition to the sixth edition. However, in my view, concerning the theory of self-command, Smith seemed to criticize stoic philosophy in the sixth edition.
In the first edition (1759), Smith comprehended that the virtue of perfect self-command was regarded as stoical heroism or, as it were, stoic virtue. In addition, he realized that the impartial spectator had to maintain a stoic magnanimity. Moreover, in the second edition (1761), according to the supplement of Epictetus' quotation in Part III, Smith emphasized stoic virtue as a means towards of the perfection of human nature. Therefore, with regard to the perfection of human nature, Smith recognized self-command as an integral part of the theory of virtue. However, in the sixth edition (1790), Smith evidently criticized the stoical apathy, which is not true self-command but lack of sensibility. Smith noticed that it was so dangerous to restrain the natural course of passions, and that the habitual most perfect self-command, though it was acquired via many hardships, might tend to fall into insensibility. Hence, Smith pointed out the proper relationship between self-command and sensibility in practical morality.

View full abstract

Download PDF (1649K)

Register with J-STAGE for free!