The Austrian national theory is understood with the names of Karl Renner and Otto Bauer. While many people realized that the existence of a nation-state cannot remove the occurence of national confrontation, much attention was lavished on their conception of personal national autonomy. However, the basis on which their concept is graunded is not fully made clear. This paper examines “the right of self-determination of nations” of Karl Renner, who advocated the policy of personal national autonomy, and intends to clarify the theoretical basis of his conception of personal national autonomy. Renner understood the nation as a personal language-culture community, and understood the state as a territorial community. Modern nationalism aims at the construction of a nation-state in which race and state correspond. This nationalism intends to unify these two social groups which are based on heterogeneous principles. Modern national problems emerge from here. In a multi-ethnic state like the ex-Austrian-Empire, the nationalists intended to build nation-states with substantial sovereignty inside of a state. Renner understood that the complicated strife between nations in Austria was thus characterized. The solution Renner raised converted Austria into a federation in which the wheels of national autonomous government and territorial autonomous government (‘twodimensional federation’) are turning. The national autonomous government is constituted by the personal principle. Free nationality-declaration of each person, registration to the nation ledger, formation of the national autonomous government as a subordinate agency of the federal government, and execution of national administration of education, welfare, and culture, these must be introduced. Renner's conception of national autonomy is based on the view of a nation as a personal community, and the view of freedom and autonomy=self-determination to be included in and secured by an upper organization or power. Renner's conception was contradictory to the fact of separation and independence of many nations after the First World War. But, the establishment of a nation-state did not bring the solution of national problems. The necessity for reexamination of Renner's conception is increasing today.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate Joseph Rowntree's philanthropy, and in particular, the Garden Village he founded, and then to clarify the importance of it as the model of a community that was like a neighbourhood unit, and as the inspiration behind the creation of the Welfare State in Britain. In the late 19th century, two successful entrepreneurs, T. Salt and E. Akroyd, had founded the villages of Saltaire and Akroydon, respectively. They were located very close to the big mills that employed their workers. These villages somewhat improved the living conditions of their employees. In London, some funding was invested in improving housing conditions and received a 5per cent commercial return. Subsequently, the setting up of the Peabody Trust in 1862 led the way for others to follow, and the endowment of trusts by philanthropic individuals developed through the Guinness Trust which was started in 1889, the Sutton Housing Trust, founded in 1900, and the Samuel Lewis Trust, foundes in 1906. But the great estate William Sutton left gave rise to fundamental social and political issues, in particular the role of charity in the provision of housing and relief of poverty. The size of his bequest raised fears that the trust could monopolise housing for the poor, disrupting local housing markets and undermining the rateable base of local authority income. Finally, the High Court of Chancery retained the direction of the Sutton Trust's affairs, exercising control over the initial funds and all surpluses generated. Around the same time, in Birmingham, the Cadbury family moved their factory from the city centre to the countryside, to a site later renamed Bournville. While the factory was under construction, some attractive cottages were erected nearby. An experimental housing estate followed a few years later, which in 1900 became the Bournville Village Trust, a product of the age that created the Garden Cities' movement. In a sense, it was the philanthropic ideal that created this community. In 1904, Joseph Rowntree, using approximately half his fortune, set up three separate Trusts. One of those was the JR Village Trust, which was concerned with living conditions and in particular with the houses at New Earswick, known as Garden Village. Through this Trust, an effort was made to provide houses that were artistic in appearance, sanitary, and thoroughly well-built yet within the means of working men earning about 25s. a week (i. e., the lowest incomegroup). In short, this project aimed to improve the housing of Rowntree's workers. Rowntree simultaneously intended to create a community that functioned like a neighbourhood unit. And so, for the inhabitants, the new village would mean something more than bricks and mortar. Through the founding Garden Village and the providing of houses for his workers, the middle-class Rowntree philanthropically pursued social reform for the public good as he saw it. We can say that the Garden Village still lives on, and continues to play the role for which Rowntree intended it, of providing welfare for the poor.
R. G. Hawtrey was an economist and officer of the Treasury and a contemporary of J. M. Keynes. He made notable contributions to various fields, and particularly to those of money and finance. He is largely a forgotten economist, though since the 1980s some studies of his theory have been undertaken by authors in various fields. The evaluations of his thought are diverse, though most authors agree that he developed a theory focused on money and credit. There are three types of studies that attribute to Hawtrey a critical tendency toward criticizing the quantity theory of money, denying the commodity theory of money, and emphasizing money as credit money. First, there are studies that evaluate his theory as one of the monetary theories of Cambridge School. Second, there are studies that stress his relation to Keynes. Third, there are studies that evaluate his theory from the viewpoint of modern theories of credit money; that is, from a Post Keynesian and Circulationist viewpoint. However, there are at least three points that are not well argued in those studies. First, there is the theory of credit money based on Hawtrey's monetary economics. Second, although the theory of trade cycle has received attention as his macroeconomics, there is the process of monetary circulation as the basis of trade cycle theory. Third, that is to emphasize the role of bank. Formerly, although studies have emphasized the “dealer” as an original factor of Hawtrey's theory of macroeconomics, the relation between the “dealer” and the theory of credit money was not emphasized. On the contrary, in the studies that emphasize money and credit, the place of the dealer was not clear. Therefore, to integrate the two positions we focus on the bank, which is defined as the “dealer in debts.” The bank is defined in the theory of credit money, and it is important to clarify the relation between the theory of credit money and Hawtrey's macroeconomic theory. The bank as well as the dealer plays not only the role of a sector in his macroeconomics, but also because of its dominance over the dealer the bank plays a central role in macroeconomic theory. To clarify these three points is the aim of this paper, and the conclusions are threefold. First, Hawtrey developed the theory of substance of money based on the credit money theory. His theory of substance of money could cope with the neoclassical argument that defines money as a medium of exchange and is grounded on commodity money. Second, there is the process of monetary circulation in his macroeconomic theory. This is a kind of stationary state in which the economy does not fluctuate, and a benchmark of the theory. Third, the bank plays an important role. The bank is defined in the theory of credit money, and links the theory of credit money to macroeconomic theory. The bank is defined as a kind of dealer, which is Hawtrey's original concept. His macroeconomic theory can be understood as the four sector model consisting of producer, consumer, bank, and dealer.
This essay aims to survey Japanese studies published in the past twenty years, which have contributed to the investigation of economic views and their theoretical bases in Japan before and during World War II, especially from the outbreak of the world economic crisis in 1929 up to the end of the Pacific War in 1945. During this period, Japanese were confronted with a serious economic depression, social and political unrest, military operations in Mandshrei and war against China, the reinforcement of militarism and totalitarianism in politics, and the second World War. With the beginning of the war against China, Japan shifted to a wartime economy, in which the government endeavored to increase the productive capacity of the munitions industry and to control the national economy. The pursuit of the government for economic control and the establishment of a wartime economy influenced the thinking and the theoretical viewpoints of intellectuals in the field of economics. Many Japanese economists pursued regulation of the economy that would continue to establish a new economic order after the war. The economic views of contemporary Japanese were very often colored ideologically by militarism that supported the present war. This way of thinking included a criticism of economic liberalism, which was related to political antiliberalism as well as to skepticism of classical economic theories. In this complex atmosphere, however, a number of Japanese economists, who were critical of the ideological moulding of economic thought, devoted themselves to the academic study of social science. The result of this intellectual exploration during this difficult period created a basis for the subsequent development of social science in Japan. The article surveys historical studies published by Japanese authors from 1982 to 2002, which deal with economic thought and its theoretical background in Japan during this period. First, it introduces the publica tions contributing to the study of the socalled “debate on Japanese capitalism” in pre-war Japan, which marked an important turning point of economics. Subsequently, the past analysis of the views of contemporary economists on the changing capitalism is conducted, in which the transition of an economy of free competition to a monopolistic economy was discussed as the main problem. This theme is related to the political tendency toward preparation for future war. Japanese historians have been much engaged with the marking of a wartime economy and the planning of an economic system prior to a future total war. Their publications are addressed in the following part of the analysis. The number of the past studies on economic views among the leaders of Japanese enterprises before and during World War II is few, and only several works can be listed here. In contrast, there have been many contributions to the study of economic views and the theoretical grounds of Japanese scholars in the field of economics during these years, which are remarked in this essay.
This survey looks at the trends in Hume studies since the 1980s. With regard to the original text and translation of Hume's writings, the new Clarendon edition of the Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, and the reliable and accessible translation are expected. The survey of recent Hume studies is divided into theoretical and historical readings. The theoretical approach produced several interesting studies. Livingston and Schmidt proposed the Hegelian reading of Hume's overall philosophy. Although we might say there is some affinity between Hume and Hegel, the extent to which the readings of Livingston and Schmidt can be considered valid is doubtful. Whelan tried to grasp Hume's political philosophy by seeking similarities between Machiavellian Realism and Hume. His attempt aims to apprehend the elusiveness of Hume's political philosophy, but the composition of the book assumes a degree of monotony due to his emphasis on the similarities between the two thinkers. In terms of an historical reading, the revisionism movement in the history of political philosophy has influenced and led the Hume studies since the 1980s. Within what is called “Wealth and Virtue” framework, Pocock, Robertson and Hont produced rich studies on Hume's political philosophy. However, this framework exerted too much influence upon subsequent Hume studies, so that the historically diverse realities were coerced to fit into this frame. Further, the idea of “discourse” sometimes produced confusion rather than clarity in this field. Since the end of the 1990s, Hume studies in the history of economic thought have been on the rise, as if the recent studies in the history of political philosophy triggered them. Their discussions have concentrated on Hume's monetary theory, but the interest in this field will lead into unexplored topics hereafter. That is to say, we have now reached the “post-Wealth and Virtue” stage, and the revisionism serves to produce the recent briskness of new Hume studies in the history of economic and political thought. Lastly, we need mention the rise in the recent years of interest in Hume's History of England. Recently, some scholars have shown deep interest in Hume's historical narratives. The recent increase in interest in the History proves that the historical studies on Hume will be followed by Hume studies in more diverse fields in the future. Along with these new studies, the problem of the relation between Hume's economic thought and his alleged appraisal of commercial society and civilization in general will need to be tackled.