Toward a “Prodigious Revival of French Economics”? Allais, Debreu, and the Dead Loss Controversy (1943–51)

IF 1.2 2区 历史学 Q3 ECONOMICS
R. Fevre, T. Mueller
{"title":"Toward a “Prodigious Revival of French Economics”? Allais, Debreu, and the Dead Loss Controversy (1943–51)","authors":"R. Fevre, T. Mueller","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10213611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article aims to trace the hitherto little-known controversy involving Maurice Allais, François Divisia, Harold Hotelling, and Gérard Debreu in the immediate postwar years. The controversy turned on “dead loss,” a measure of the maximum value of available surplus serving as a gauge of economic efficiency and social welfare. The protagonists argued about how it should be expressed mathematically, the hypothesis underpinning it, and its general significance. The paper draws heavily on unpublished materials (letters and notes) to unfold the different stages of the dead loss controversy and shows that it was driven by an intricate interlacing of technical advances in welfare economics with Allais's personal ambition to spearhead the revival of French economics. Eventually, this controversy (and the tense exchange between Allais and Debreu that came with it) proved a remarkable—although tacit—driving force behind Debreu's contributions of the early 1950s.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10213611","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This article aims to trace the hitherto little-known controversy involving Maurice Allais, François Divisia, Harold Hotelling, and Gérard Debreu in the immediate postwar years. The controversy turned on “dead loss,” a measure of the maximum value of available surplus serving as a gauge of economic efficiency and social welfare. The protagonists argued about how it should be expressed mathematically, the hypothesis underpinning it, and its general significance. The paper draws heavily on unpublished materials (letters and notes) to unfold the different stages of the dead loss controversy and shows that it was driven by an intricate interlacing of technical advances in welfare economics with Allais's personal ambition to spearhead the revival of French economics. Eventually, this controversy (and the tense exchange between Allais and Debreu that came with it) proved a remarkable—although tacit—driving force behind Debreu's contributions of the early 1950s.
走向“法国经济学的惊人复兴”?阿莱、德布鲁和死亡损失争议(1943-51)
本文旨在追溯战后几年中涉及莫里斯·阿莱斯、弗朗索瓦·迪西娅、哈罗德·霍特林和热拉尔·德布鲁的迄今鲜为人知的争议。争议转向了“死损失”,这是一种衡量可用盈余最大价值的指标,是衡量经济效率和社会福利的指标。主角们争论了它应该如何在数学上表达,支撑它的假设,以及它的一般意义。这篇论文大量引用了未发表的材料(信件和笔记),揭示了死亡损失争议的不同阶段,并表明这是由福利经济学的技术进步与阿莱斯领导法国经济学复兴的个人野心之间错综复杂的交织所驱动的。最终,这场争论(以及随之而来的阿莱斯和德布雷之间的紧张交流)证明了德布雷在20世纪50年代初的贡献背后的一股非凡的——尽管是默许的——驱动力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
14.30%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Focusing on the history of economic thought and analysis, History of Political Economy has made significant contributions to the field and remains its foremost means of communication. In addition to book reviews, each issue contains original research on the development of economic thought, the historical background behind major figures in the history of economics, the interpretation of economic theories, and the methodologies available to historians of economic theory. All subscribers to History of Political Economy receive a hardbound annual supplement as part of their subscription.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信