The Institutionalists’ Reaction to Chamberlin’s 'Theory of Monopolistic Competition'

Edwin Chamberlin's The Theory of Monopolistic competition is often described as containing omportant traces of institutionalist influence. This is also confimred by Chamberlin himself who, repeadetly, referred to the work of Veblen, and John Maurice Clark among his inspirational sources. The aim of this paper is to analyse the institutionalist rection to the publication of the Theory of Monopolistic Competition. What will be argued is that the institutionalist response to Chamberlin was a mixed one, and involved some substantial criticisms of his analysis of market structures both on methodological and theoretical grounds. The paper is organized as follows. The first section presents a sketch of the main theoretical implications contained in The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. The second section analyses the general aspects of the institutionalist reaction to Chamberlin. The third and fourth sections deal with the more theoretical aspects of the institutionalist criticism of Chamberlin. The final section presents a conclusion

John R. Commons, Wesley N. Hohfeld and the Origins of Transactional Economics

The aim of this paper is to provide an assessment of John R. Commons’ adoption of Wesley N. Hohfeld’s framework of jural opposites and correlatives in order to construct his transactional approach to the study of institutions. Hohfeld’s influence on Commons, it is argued, was both positive and negative. On the one hand, Commons, followed Hohfeld and recognized that such concepts as property and inheritance actually represent an aggregation of numerous types of legal relations. Hohfeld’s schema provided a powerful rhetorical and analytical tool whereby these highly abstracts conceptions could be reduced to a limited number of primary elements. Moreover, Hohfeld’s schema appeared to be consistent with Commons’ general methodological and psychological commitments. On the other hand, Commons’ forging of “transaction” as the elementary unit of economic analysis can be seen as an attempt to go beyond Hohfeld. Commons was in fact unsatisfied with Hohfeld’s bi-lateral treatment of jural relations and with his neglect of the role played by state officials in enforcing transactions and, in so doing, in promoting specific individual interests as collective public policies

Jacob Viner’s Reminiscences from the New Deal (February 11, 1953)

This paper presents and reproduces an unpublished oral history interview given by Jacob Viner in 1953. The interview released by Viner for the Columbia Oral History Project gives us a valuable opportunity to throw light on his advisory activity during the New Deal Era. In our introduction we attempt to make a critical appraisal of Viner's reminiscences and to state the contribution they can provide to our general knowledge of the period. In addition, we also attempt to find out some biographical and interpretative elements useful to understand Viner’s own vision and his contribution to important economic policy processes during the New Deal.

Beyond Legal Relations Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld’s Influence on American Institutionalism

This paper documents Hohfeld’s influence on interwar American institutionalism. We will mainly focus on three leading figures of the movement: John Rogers Commons, Robert Lee Hale, and John Maurice Clark. They regarded Hohfeld’s contribution on jural relations as a preliminary step toward the understanding of the adversarial nature of legal rights. Albeit with substantial differences in style, method and emphasis, Hohfeld’s schema provided a powerful analytical and rhetorical tool for their analysis.

When Economics Faces the Economy: John Bates Clark and the 1914 Antitrust Legislation

The aim of this paper is to analyze John Bates Clark's influence in the passing of the Clayton and Federal Trade Commission Acts of 1914. It is argued that Clark was important to the passage of these acts in two ways. First, he exercised an indirect influence by discussing in academic journals and books problems concerning trusts, combinations, and the measures necessary to preserve the working of competitive markets. At least as importantly, Clark took an active role in the reform movement, both contributing to draft proposals for the amendment of existing antitrust legislation and providing help and advice during the Congressional debates that led to the passage of the FTC and Clayton Acts. © 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

A Scholar in Action in Interwar America. John H. Williams’ contributions to trade theory and international monetary reform

In this paper we analyse the scientific contributions of Harvard economist John H. Williams as international trade theorist and monetary reformer, together with his activities as a Vice President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In the first two Sections we present a succinct overview of Williams’ main contributions to international trade theory and to the interwar debate on the reform of the international monetary system. Particular attention will be devoted to his early academic writings which contained different critical arguments against the two main tenets of classical international economics: the Ricardian theory of comparative advantages and the gold standard. These criticisms formed the theoretical rationale and the analytical background of Williams’ key currency approach to the reform of the international monetary system. The key currency plan was first formulated when Williams advised Roosevelt and Morghenthau to sign a Tripartite agreement with Britain and France, and was later refined during the negotiations which concluded with the approval of the Bretton Woods agreements. In this respect, Section 4 is devoted to the analysis of the contents of Williams’ proposal and to the reconstruction of his main criticisms of the two official plans presented by John Maynard Keynes and Harry Dexter White. Section 5 is devoted to examining Keynes’ and White’s reactions and to elucidating what aspects of Williams’ ideas managed to influence the shaping of the Bretton Woods Agreements. Finally, Section 6 presents some general conclusions. Sections 4 and 5 have greatly benefited from the use of archival sources which have been quoted at length, mostly in the footnotesJohn H. Williams; John Maynard Keynes; Harry D. White; Bretton Woods Agreements; Key currency; gold standard; economists in Government

Does brick size matter? Albert G. Keller on another QWERTY story

In his seminal ‘‘Clio and the Economics of Qwerty’’, Paul David indicates Thorstein Veblen’s famous discussion of the British system of coal rail haulage as an intellectual antecedent to the idea of lock in. This note documents how Albert G. Keller, a Yale sociologist contemporary of Veblen, had presented a similar argument in connection to the establishment of a brick tax in England and its effects on the size of bricks. Like Veblen, Keller used this illustration to emphasize the inertia exercised by certain institutional conditions

La posizionalità come presupposto della relazionalità; e viceversa

Both relational and positional goods are based upon an idea of joint consumption - thought with opposite signs. In both cases, agents are not self-regarded, but their consumption choices are other-regarded. Moreover, relational good lies on identity of its consumers. It implies a certain degree of positionality within the consumption of relational goods. Analogously, except for two-agent context, each positional good has a relational component. What emerges is a complex structure of economic outcomes based on both relational and positional motives.Relational Good, Positional Good.

On john maynard keynes's anti-semitism once again: A documentary note

This note presents new archival evidence about John Maynard Keynes' attitudes toward Jews. The relevant material is composed of two letters sent by Robert G. Wertheimer to Bertrand Russell and Richard F. Kahn along with their replies. Between 1963 and 1964, Wertheimer - An Austrian-born Jewish immigrant then professor of economics at Babson College - wrote to Russell and Kahn asking for their personal reminiscences concerning Keynes' anti-Semitic utterances. In their brief but still significant responses, both Russell and Kahn firmly denied any hint of anti-Semitism in Keynes, thereby providing significant first-hand testimonies from two of his closest acquaintances