-
Keiichi WATANABE
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
1-13
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
The history of economic thought should be studied in light of the latest historical studies, since its main purpose as a field of inquiry, generally speaking, is to interpret economic writings in historical context. ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ as defined by P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins is the most important paradigm in the historical study of modern Britain in the last thirty years. It describes a British society in which between 1688 and 1850 the landed, in alliance with the moneyed and commercial interests, have dominated the economy and polity. This perspective is rooted in recent interpretations of the industrial revolution which stress that the manufacturing interests did not make a steady or complete rise either to economic or political supremacy.
This paper challenges the traditional view of Adam Smith, the author of the Theory of
Moral Sentiments (1759) and the
Wealth of Nations (1776), who predicted that industrial capitalists would become hegemonic in British society in the nineteenth century. This challenge is carried out by rereading the historical dimension of the
Wealth of Nations in favour of the ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ thesis. Our conclusion is that Smith considered the ‘civilized society’ to be one engaged in agrarian capitalism in which a progressive landed gentry holds economic and political hegemony. In a word, the
Wealth of Nations expounded the Political Economy of the landed gentry. Our interpretation of Smith basically supports Cain and Hopkins's view with the exception that it does not include the commercial interests as they do in the list of gentlemanly capitalists.
View full abstract
-
Junichi HIMENO
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
14-25
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
As a contribution to the research for the history of economic theory and social thought, this paper clarifies the significance of the “Gentlemanly Capitalism” thesis proposed by P. F. Cain and A. G. Hopkins in the mid-1980's in the field of English history, particularly Social and Economic history.
First, we examine the emergence of this thesis chronologically focusing on its methodology and analyse the unique view of investment that characterises this thesis. Second, following the disputes surrounding its iconoclastic proposition, we summarise its shortcoming in the lack of the consumption perspective in dealing with the class policy. Third, concerning Cain's reseach on the imperialism theory of J. A. Hobson, the significance of the P. F. Clarke's criticism is discussed. In conclusion, “Gentlemanly Capitalism” thesis is judged as a static theory of the investment struture. A dynamic analysis of the social process of policy making is missing.
View full abstract
-
Michihiro OTONASHI
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
26-39
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
Economics today is confronted with great difficulties as it attempts to theoretically treat environmental concerns and many other serious problems. This situation, in my view, has been brought about partly by the way of thinking that confines economics largely to the analysis of the price mechanisms of goods in so far as they find their way into the market. On the contrary, the conception of “moral economy” as formulated by E. P. Thompson recognises that many important facets of the life of people in a society exist outside the market. Through research into historical sources of the food riots in eighteenth century England, he found that there existed a traditional and customary right to subsistence among the labouring poor. These poor repeatedly rioted against increases in corn and bread prices in times of dearth, selling them at prices they set themselves. In light of this history, Thompson severely criticised Adam Smith's theory of free trade in the corn market as victimizing the labouring poor, and hence he criticised Smith's political economy as a whole. However, despite his correctness in emphasising the necessity for remedies to scarcity among the poor, he seems to have misunderstood the character and nature of political economy in general. Political economy from Smith to J. S. Mill and economics even after the 1870s sought to remedy the poverty of the labouring poor as a subject and to reconcile their rights to subsistence with the right of property.
View full abstract
-
Toshimichi MATSUOKA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
40-51
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
I. Wallerstein advanced a theoretical and historical account of the origins and structure of the modern world-system. There are two important points in his theory. First, he criticized the traditional theory of the state. In the modern world-system theory, he holds, the subject of analysis is not the nation-state but inter-state relations. Second, he denied the possibility of national development in the modern world-system. In his view, the constituent institutions in the system such as nation-states cannot develop independently, but rather merely change their economic and political position within the system.
World-systems analysis emerged as a critique of current social science, and while there exist some theoretical contradictions to resolve in this type of analysis, it is concluded that it has raised important questions for current social science to grapple with. In
Race,
Nation,
Class by Wallerstein and Balibar, we find a promising direction in which to develop the modern world-system theory.
View full abstract
-
Tomiichi HOSHINO
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
52-63
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
This paper focuses on how the theoretical framework of Ricardo's new position on machinery has changed on account of a revolutionary change in his conclusions in the third edition of
Principles:. In this edition he proposed, namely, that some portion of the laboring class might lose employment because of the introduction of new machinery.
Professor Takuya Hatori claims that Ricardo has maintained the proposition that the demand for labor depends on the size of a nation's gross product while admittingly only that there will be a diminution in the demand for labor due to the introduction of new machinery.
My view is that Ricardo has attained the following important results: First, Ricardo has refuted ‘the compensation theory’ by assuming a socially representative unit of capital, by precisely setting the theoretical framework for fixed aggregate capital, and by introducing a theory in which circulating capital is replaced with fixed capital; second, he has not only asserted that an introduction of machinery probably diminishes the quantity of gross product and, hence, the demand for labor, but has also tried to prove it.
View full abstract
-
Atsushi KOMINE
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
64-76
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
The purpose of this paper is to reconsider the contribution of Montagu Collet Norman (1871-1950) in comparison with that of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). Norman, Governor of the Bank of England (1920-1994), was one of the key figures responsible for the monetary and industrial policies in interwar Britain.
There exist two sharply contrasting interpretations of Norman's work. The first interpretation is represented by Pollard [1922], who criticized Norman for implementing “the Designed Deflationary Policy.” The second can be found in Clay [1957] and Sayers [1976], who appreciated Norman's promotion of “Rationalization in Industry.” Of those in the second camp, Tanaka [1976] in particular characterized Norman's actual intention as “the Dis-deflationary Policy, ” i. e., as a policy intended to avoid further deflationary effects derived from the previous high bank rate.
In this paper, I concluded, when reading and reconstructing Norman's and Keynes's letters, memoranda, and other evidence for the Macmillan Committee (1930), that neither of these two understandings of Norman is appropriate. In the present work I introduce a new label for Norman's work: “the Dogma of Independence between Depression and Monetary Policy.”
Finally, upon rethinking the motives and results of the monetary and industrial policies of the 1920s in comparison with Keynes's ideas, I conclude that an understanding of Norman's “innovative contribution” as fairly restricted would be the most appropriate.
View full abstract
-
Differences in the Theory of Capitalist Development
Naoki NABESHIMA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
77-89
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
At present, many heterodox economists are concerned with the economics of Michal Kalecki. However, their vision of the historical development of capitalist economies is somewhat different from that of Kalecki himself. This paper makes clear the nature of Kalecki's theory of capitalist development by contrasting his theory with that of the Kaleckians', and considers its significance in the present.
While Kalecki viewed capitalist economies as essentially oligopolistic systems, he did not hold that a rise in the degree of monopoly necessarily brought a stagnationist tendency into an economic system. He explained the slowing down in economic growth in the later stages of capitalist development by a semiexogenous factor, namely a decline in the intensity of innovations. Contrastingly, Kaleckians such as Steindl, Baran, Sweezy and Cowling argued that the secular stagnation in capitalist economies is generated endogenously by the concentration and centralization of capital.
At present, in studying the process of capitalist development, we have to adopt the view that capitalism changes through the alternation of long-term growth and long-term crisis. In doing so, we should learn from Kalecki's viewpoint that economic growth depends on past economic, social and technological developments.
View full abstract
-
Takahiro KONDO
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
90-102
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
Edward Gibbon Wakefield, known as a British Colonial Imperialist, was a free constitutionalist in the first half of the nineteenth century. In 1844, in order to promote imperial unity and to encourage prosperity both at home and in the colonies, he argued for constitutional reform in the British North American colonies. In the face of the Canadian political crisis, Wakefield argued for greater freedom for the Provincial government to promote own legislation, thereby increasing the autonomy of the colony. He thought that the surrendering patronage to the Canadian Province would be effective as a remedy to the crisis, so that the provincial cabinet was responsible solely to the colonial legislature. Wakefield intended in part to revise the recommendation in the Durham Report, and to make the British colonies an extension of Great Britain so they would attract enfranchised emigrants from the Isles. The paper concludes that despite Wakefield's argument, the Revolutionary Settlement as a reforming model could not be transplanted to the colonies either in theory and practice.
View full abstract
-
Katsuyoshi WATARAI
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
103-110
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Izumi OMURA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
111-120
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Yuichi MATSUMOTO
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
121-127
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Toshiaki HIRAI
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
128-137
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
138-140
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
141-142
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
142-144
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
145-146
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
147-148
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
148-149
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
150-152
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
152-154
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
155-157
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
158-160
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
160-162
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese], [in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
162-165
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
165-166
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
[in Japanese]
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
166-167
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Hideo TANAKA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
168-169
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Hiroshi KITAMI
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
170-171
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Tetsushi HARADA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
171-172
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Shigeki TOMO
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
172-173
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Mikio NISHIOKA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
174-175
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Chikako NAKAYAMA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
175-176
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Yoshihiro YAMAZAKI
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
177-178
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Shuichi NAKAMURA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
178-180
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Tamotsu NISHIZAWA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
181-182
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Kiyofumi YAWAHA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
182-183
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Daisuke ARIE
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
183-185
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Tamotsu MATSUURA
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
185-187
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Katsuyoshi WATARAI
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
187-189
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Yasunori FUKAGAI
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
189-191
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS
-
Kunio NAKAKUBO
1998 Volume 36 Issue 36 Pages
191-192
Published: 1998
Released on J-STAGE: August 05, 2010
JOURNAL
FREE ACCESS