Scott Gordon

The New Contractarians

This division of labor, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which forsees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such utility; the propensity to trade, barter, and exchange one thing for another. [This propensity] ... is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts.

Darwin and political economy: The connection reconsidered

ConclusionIt seems to me that no substantial support can be provided for the thesis that the Darwinian theory of evolution drew significantly upon ideas in contemporary Political Economy. What Darwin may have derived from Malthus was not an integral part of the theory of population that the classical economists, including Malthus, put forward. He did not know the literature of Political Economy; and if he had been acquainted with it, he would not have been able to derive anything from it that was important for the theory of natural selection. The judgment that “with Darwins theory there was a real transfer of knowledge from political economy to biology” (Pancaldi 1985:262) cannot be sustained.

The Close of the Galbraithian System

J. K. Galbraiths new book, The New Industrial State, can be regarded as the further elaboration of ideas which first caught wide public attention sixteen years ago with the publication of his American Capitalism and subsequently with The Affluent Society. Some significant differences can be seen between the first and last of these, but it is apparent to anyone who reads them together that the three are to a considerable extent companion volumes, amplifying themes which run through all. The title of this review article may be premature in the sense that one should not assume that further books on these great themes will not flow from Galbraiths prolific pen, but with The New Industrial State, his view of the nature of the modern economy and his identification of its major problems are now clear and can be considered as a potential system of ideas. Ten years ago, in The Affluent Society, Galbraith noted that his mind was turning toward matters which now find expression in his new book and, despite the fact that he has been writing other books and doing many other important things these past ten years, The New Industrial State may be considered as a work of mature reflection by Americas most widely known economist. It is perhaps time, then, to make a general evaluation of Galbraiths economic thought, to try to locate its place in the history of the science, and to appraise the contribution it may make to our understanding of the modern world. One must begin with a candid recognition that the academic reader of Galbraiths books is under a strong temptation to react negatively to the authors style and method of discourse. He waives the scholarly conventions in favor of a rhetoric which is designed to appeal to the lay reader. But the stylistic techniques he employs to this end increase the difficulty of grasping the substance and structure of his thought and work against a

Should Economists Pay Attention to Philosophers? [Review Article]

Two recent books evaluating modern economics from the standpoint of the philosophy of science are examined: Hollis and Nell, Rational Economic Man, and Rosenberg, Microeconomic Laws. The former, severely critical of orthodox economics, advocates a philosophy of radical rationalism and construes Marxian economics to be its necessary consequent. The latter, adopting an empiricist philosophy of science, concludes that orthodox microeconomics rests on sound foundations. The paper goes on to make some remarks on the role of the philosophy of science as a scholarly discipline.

The market as a commons: Is catching customers like catching fish?

SummaryThis note is a critique of an article by P. Copes published in the February 1984 issue ofDe Economist. Copes argues that an open access market must be regarded as a common property resource. By analogy to the economics of the fishery, he derives the proposition that free access to any market results in excess capacity because competitive entry dissipates what he calls the ‘market rent.’ Copes claims that his results hold for the limiting case of perfect competition. Our critique explains why the analogy between a perfectly competitive market and a open access fishery is invalid.

Why does Homo sapiens differ

Abstract The paper contends that man is most differentiated from other species in the nature of his sociality. In support of this thesis, the modes of social organization and the dynamics of evolutionary change in man and other animals are compared. The concluding section argues that mans material progress is due to his unique ability to employ modes of social organization which, by dealing effectively with the common property problem, permit the generation of ‘surplus’.

The History and Philosophy of Social Science.

1. Sociality and Social Science 2. The Rise of the Age of Science 3. Social Laws 4. Political Theory and Political Philosophy 5. Physiocracy: The First Economic Model 6. The Methodology of Modelling 7. The Scottish Enlightenment of the Eighteenth Century 8. Progress and Perfection 9. Classical Political Economy 10. The Idea of Harmonious Order 11. Utilitarianism 12. French Positivism and the Beginnings of Sociology 13. The Marxian Theory of Society 14. The Methodology of History 15. The Development of Sociological Theory 16. Biology, Social Science, and Social Policy 17. The Development of Economic Theory 18. The Foundations of Science