None of the existing scholarly literature has explored or appreciated Director’s great respect for Hayek or their relationship. This paper explores the relationship of Hayek and Director, and argues that Director should be viewed as a disciple of Hayek in the immediate post-war period. Newly available archival material in the Director Papers at the University of Chicago as well as material in the Hayek Papers allow for a deeper appreciation of their relationship than was previously possible. The archival record indicates that the central arc of their relationship occurred from 1945 to roughly 1950, when they heavily corresponded, and primarily focuses on this pivotal time period. Through exploring the relationship of Hayek and Director, this paper challenges the frequent claim that Hayek did not influence the post-war Chicago School, and argues that, starting in 1946, Hayek, even though he was not yet at Chicago, influenced the initial intellectual trajectory of the post-war Chicago School through his disciple Director.

In 1912 Guillermo Subercaseaux (1872–1959), a professor of economics at the University of Chile, published El Papel Moneda, translated into French in 1920 as Le Papier-Monnaie. The paper provides a full treatment of Subercaseaux’s interpretation of the working of paper-money economies, including his approach to the determination of the exchange rate of depreciated currencies and his views about the problem posed by the existence of a positive value of inconvertible paper money. We investigate how his framework was related to classic contributions by Adolph Wagner (1868), Carlo Ferraris (1879), and Wesley C. Mitchell (1903, 1908). We also deal with the background formed by the South American debates between ‘papeleros’ and ‘oreros’ (paper-money and gold-standard supporters) at the time. The paper offers an investigation of an aspect of the international transmission of economic ideas, this time from the periphery to the center.

This Presidential Address revisits Paul Samuelson’s views on the history of science and history of economics, with the advantage of archival evidence from his papers now deposited at Duke. It suggests he was not impressed with historians in general; but also, that his faith in the orthodox neoclassical profession failed him towards the end of his life, when those in the profession started to treat him the way that he had treated the historians.

Albeit concerned with the biological element in social evolution, Albert B. Wolfe was among the very few economists of the progressive era who openly expressed their concerns about certain implications of eugenic rhetoric for the social science. Specifically, Wolfe questioned the strong hereditary boundaries that more extreme eugenicists suggested about human beings. A careful examination of Wolfe’s writings reveals that his reaction was rooted in the belief that many of the social problems that eugenicists attributed to hereditary limitations were actually imputable to the influence that the social, economic, and physical environment exercised on the individuals.

Variations and disparities between von Hayek and Ordoliberalism can be detected on diverse levels: 1. philosophy of science; 2. setting dissimilar priorities; 3. social philosophy; 4. genesis of norms; and, 5. notion of freedom. Therefore, it is possible to make an important distinction within neoliberalism itself, which contains at least two factions: von Hayek’s evolutionary liberalism, and German Ordoliberalism. The following essay not only takes the neoliberal separation of different varieties as granted; it proceeds further. It focuses on the topic of justice and elaborates the (slightly) differing conceptions of justice within neoliberalism. Thus, the specific contribution of the paper is that it adds a sixth dimension of difference (which is highly interconnected with the differing conceptions of genesis of norms). In this paper, I emphasize the (often neglected) subtle differences between von Hayek, Eucken, Röpke, and Rüstow, with special emphasis on their theories of justice. In this regard, I focus not only on Eucken and von Hayek; in addition, I include the concepts of justice developed by Rüstow and Röpke, as well, and, in consequence, broaden the perspective incorporating Eucken as a member of the Freiburg School of Law and Economics, and Rüstow and Röpke as representatives of Ordoliberalism in the wider sense. The paper tackles these topics in three steps. After briefly examining and discussing the existing literature and providing a literature overview on the decade-long debate on von Hayek and Ordoliberalism, I then describe von Hayek’s conception of commutative justice; particularly, justice of rules and procedures (rather than end-state justice). Then, I examine Eucken’s, Rüstow’s, and Röpke’s theories of justice, which consist of a mixture of commutative and distributive justice. Then, I draw a comparison between the ideas of justice developed by Eucken, Röpke, Rüstow, and von Hayek. The essay ends with a summary of my main findings.

This paper reconsiders the supposed agreement of David Ricardo and William Nassau Senior on the question of the method of political economy. The first part shows that Senior was very critical about Ricardo’s approach to economic phenomena and considered that this question of method had important consequences on theoretical points. The second part analyzes the way Ricardo was dealing with economics. It shows that though Senior was right in considering that their respective methods were different and led to important analytical divergences, he nevertheless misunderstood Ricardo’s method with a hypothetico-deductive one. The consequence is that Senior’s criticisms on Ricardo’s theories of rent, natural wages, and of the tendencies of agricultural returns to decrease and of profit to fall are ill-founded, being based on a misunderstanding of the way they were established.

The aim of this paper is to analyze the state of the quantity theory in the United States prior to the publication of Irving Fisher’s The Purchasing Power of Money in 1911. We start by presenting the participants in the monetary debate. Next, we analyze the controversies regarding prices, purchasing power of money, and credit, prior to the Gold Standard Act of 1900, in particular the opposing views of Francis Amasa Walker and James Laurence Laughlin. We then go on to study of the restatement of the quantity theory at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the introduction of credit in the analysis and the statistical tests of the exchange equations. Finally, we study the problems and management of the gold standard, focusing on the elasticity of money supply, the characteristics of the gold exchange standard, and the contrast between the fixed price of gold and its fluctuating purchasing power. We show the improvement of the quantity theory and the new issues that emerged from the rich and original American monetary debate, prior to the publication in 1911 of Fisher’s book.

Financial economics was born in the 1960s. It took less than two decades for the new discipline’s main theoretical results to become established, creating what is considered to be mainstream financial economics. Less than thirty years later, a new field of research called “econophysics” was created. This field aims to reinvent modern financial theory and, indirectly, financial economics.

This article proposes to study, by an historical analysis, to what extent econophysics today could constitute one of the major theoretical challenges to financial economics. It shows how these two fields have historical similarities, and analyzes how these similarities call the future evolution of financial theory into question.

This paper examines the influence of Irving Fisher’s writings on Milton Friedman’s work in monetary economics. We focus first on Fisher’s influences in monetary theory (the quantity theory of money, the Fisher effect, Gibson’s Paradox, the monetary theory of business cycles, and the Phillips Curve), and empirics (e.g., distributed lags.). Then we discuss Fisher and Friedman’s views on monetary policy and various schemes for monetary reform (the k% rule, freezing the monetary base, the compensated dollar, a mandate for price stability, 100% reserve money, and stamped money). Assessing the influence of an earlier economist’s writings on that of later scholars is a challenge. As a science progresses, the views of its earlier pioneers are absorbed in the weltanschauung. Fisher’s The Purchasing Power of Money as well as the work of Pigou and Marshall were the basic building blocks for later students of monetary economics. Thus, the Chicago School of the 1930s absorbed Fisher’s approach, and Friedman learned from them. However, in some salient aspects of Friedman’s work, we can clearly detect a major direct influence of Fisher’s writings on Friedman’s. Thus, for example, with the buildup of inflation in the 1960s, Friedman adopted the Fisher effect and Fisher’s empirical approach to inflationary expectations into his analysis. Therefore, Fisher’s influence on Friedman was both indirect through the Chicago School and direct. Regardless of the weight attached to the two influences, Fisher’s impact on Friedman was profound.

The paper argues that oikonomia was defined by the ancient Greek philosophers as a sphere in which man, when faced with excessive means, acquires a theoretical and practical prudent disposition in order to comply with his needs and so as to generate a man-made surplus that is to be found outside economy’s boundaries. In order to extricate this meaning, I focus on how the following categories are presented in ancient texts dedicated to the study of the oikonomia in its meaning of household management: i) oikonomia’s form of knowledge; ii) the essence of wealth and its end; and iii) the origin of the excess that appears in the economic sphere.

This article focuses on Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” and other of his writings that were prompted by the unsustainable socio-economic and geo-political conditions under which the poor native Irish were living. The article begins with introductory comments and then moves to conditions in Ireland when Swift was writing that contributed to his strong concern for the native poor. Next is provided a summary of “A Modest Proposal” and consideration of what drove Swift to the extreme he reached in the essay. Following this, Swift’s writings are explored as indicators of his opinion of political arithmeticians, and conclusions close the paper.

Arthur Pigou introduced the iconic two-road model in the first edition of The Economics of Welfare (1920), and it has been thought that this model was intended to demonstrate the need for Pigouvian taxes to mitigate traffic congestion. However, Pigou’s intention was to show that efficient output for industries subject to decreasing returns required a tax on output. Pigou was incorrect, but the two-road model (correctly considered) became the starting point for the analysis of traffic congestion in the 1950s. This paper recounts the doctrinal history of decreasing returns industries and the two-road model.

In Wealth of Nations, a high rate of profit is associated with sluggish or even negative growth, and vice versa. This is because capital accumulation (and therefore population growth) is driven by parsimony of the masters; and the incentive to self-denial is eroded by a high income too easily obtained. The causal relation between parsimony, the rate of profit, and accumulation is explicated in this article; Adam Smith’s observations concerning “the merchants of Cadiz and Lisbon” examined critically; and some conjectures offered as to why Smith’s successors should have rejected parsimony as a useful concept.

Jacob Viner’s The Customs Union Issue, published in 1950, is the one undeniable classic in its field. The first part of this paper traces the development of Viner’s thinking on preferential trading arrangements, places his work in context, and clarifies his position on disputed issues. The second part considers the reception of his work, from the enthusiastic early reviewers to the international economists who further developed the theory of customs unions, to contemporary practitioners. While practitioners consistently misread Viner, these misreadings were scientifically fruitful, and there are reasons why fruitful science might flow from poor contextual history. Among contemporary international economists, the book has become a classic, marking off and justifying a field of enquiry.

This article reconsiders, in the light of the current financial turmoil, Irving Fisher’s 1911 theory of financial crises and his 1933 debt-deflation theory of Great Depressions. Particular attention is given to the role of high debt ratios, high leverage ratios, and changes in the purchasing power of money in Fisher’s analysis, and to Fisher’s compensated dollar plan to stabilize the purchasing power of money. It is argued that indexing the unit of account would accomplish Fisher’s goal of stabilization without the practical difficulties of Fisher’s compensated dollar plan.

This article argues that Western impressions of the Chinese pre-modern monetary experience might have been excessively colored by Marco Polo’s favorable commentary on the stability of the Mongol polity and its dissemination of paper money. Experiments with unconvertible paper money had ultimately been no more successful in late-imperial China than they were in the early-modern West. By 1430, in fact, the Ming dynasty was forced to abandon the issuance of paper money altogether. The genesis of paper money both in China and it the West had originally emanated from private institutions. However, royally chartered banks of issue were conspicuously absent from the Chinese setting until the late nineteenth century.

Irving Fisher believed in evidence-based decision making. This paper considers how three aspects of Fisher’s methodology could be useful now in the quest to deal with U.S. financial instability: (1) his institutional approach; (2) his efforts to use index number theory as a means to improve official statistics data; and (3) his interest in automating aspects of data analyses. The paper concludes with a call to action for Fisher’s progeny. Actions to solve US financial instability are surely the most fitting possible tribute to Irving Fisher.

The paper discusses the work of Giacinto Dragonetti, a disciple of the Neapolitan Antonio Genovesi, founder of the Economia Civile tradition. Dragonetti’s short book, A Treatise on Virtues and Rewards, appeared in Naples in 1766, shortly after Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments (1764). In the Treatise, Dragonetti advances a theory of action based on awards for virtues. The idea of awards relies on the hypothesis that good or virtuous citizens act for intrinsic reasons. Modern economics has followed the path of incentives (and “punishments”), not that of awards. The paper argues that Dragonetti’s contributions remain relevant not only for the history of economic thought, but for contemporary economic theory, as well.

The modern Ricardian equivalence theorem focuses on the intertemporal equivalence between taxation and bond financing of government expenditures that David Ricardo considered practically irrelevant, rather than their contemporaneous equivalence in terms of the opportunity cost of government spending. Relying upon the implausible assumption of each individual’s future tax-capitalization behavior that Ricardo explicitly rejected, the modern Ricardian equivalence theorem reaches the exact opposite conclusions about government deficit spending than Ricardo argued. This paper explains these fundamental problems with the modern Ricardian equivalence proposition and shows an alternative method of arguing Robert Barro’s original point about the inefficacy of Keynesian deficit spending.