Marking Time: Marshall's Search for Narrative Explanatory Coherence

IF 1.2 2区 历史学 Q3 ECONOMICS
H. Maas
{"title":"Marking Time: Marshall's Search for Narrative Explanatory Coherence","authors":"H. Maas","doi":"10.1215/00182702-10438869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n It is well known that Marshall had great difficulty in organizing his work after the Principles. The promised second volume never came, and for the books that eventually were published, Industry and Trade (1919) and Money, Credit, and Commerce (1923), Marshall was at pains to find the right mode of expression for his research. In the introduction to the Principles, Marshall had explained his reliance on partial equilibrium analysis and, more generally, ceteris paribus reasoning as the natural method of the economist, for which his method of diagrams was an excellent fit. But already while working on his Principles Marshall had moved closer to economic history. In a letter of June 1879 to Jevons, he had praised Jevons's statistical work as an important step in “‘real’-ising” the abstract theories of economists, in which he promised to follow suit. However, while Jevons tried to flesh out mathematical relations that captured the economic causalities hidden in statistical data, Marshall started to explore a different strategy, a strategy that explains his criticism of “mathematico-statistics” and the waning away of his initial enthusiasm for the method of diagrams as an engine of discovery. Instead of relying on the ceteris paribus method, which would examine one causal factor at a time, Marshall searched for an approach that captured the causalities in the economy as an encompassing whole. A shorthand for this approach is his famous epigraph to Industry and Trade: “The many in the one, the one in the many.” Moving away from the opposition between abstract theory and economic facts, Marshall tried to develop a strategy that mediates between the generic categories of the economist and the specific events of history that are the domain of the economic historian. In contrast with the ceteris paribus strategy Marshall embraced in his Principles, in which an incomplete analysis is improved by adding causal factors, Marshall explored what this article calls a narrative strategy, in which he tried to work out how to integrate a manifold of heterogenous causal factors into a unified whole, thus providing causal coherence to a complete chronology of events. The purpose of my contribution to this issue is to explore the development and substance of this narrative strategy. This article will use Jevons's and Marshall's different cartographies of time as an entry point to understand Marshall's narrative take on the causal explanation of the facts of history.","PeriodicalId":47043,"journal":{"name":"History of Political Economy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-10438869","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: 0

Abstract

It is well known that Marshall had great difficulty in organizing his work after the Principles. The promised second volume never came, and for the books that eventually were published, Industry and Trade (1919) and Money, Credit, and Commerce (1923), Marshall was at pains to find the right mode of expression for his research. In the introduction to the Principles, Marshall had explained his reliance on partial equilibrium analysis and, more generally, ceteris paribus reasoning as the natural method of the economist, for which his method of diagrams was an excellent fit. But already while working on his Principles Marshall had moved closer to economic history. In a letter of June 1879 to Jevons, he had praised Jevons's statistical work as an important step in “‘real’-ising” the abstract theories of economists, in which he promised to follow suit. However, while Jevons tried to flesh out mathematical relations that captured the economic causalities hidden in statistical data, Marshall started to explore a different strategy, a strategy that explains his criticism of “mathematico-statistics” and the waning away of his initial enthusiasm for the method of diagrams as an engine of discovery. Instead of relying on the ceteris paribus method, which would examine one causal factor at a time, Marshall searched for an approach that captured the causalities in the economy as an encompassing whole. A shorthand for this approach is his famous epigraph to Industry and Trade: “The many in the one, the one in the many.” Moving away from the opposition between abstract theory and economic facts, Marshall tried to develop a strategy that mediates between the generic categories of the economist and the specific events of history that are the domain of the economic historian. In contrast with the ceteris paribus strategy Marshall embraced in his Principles, in which an incomplete analysis is improved by adding causal factors, Marshall explored what this article calls a narrative strategy, in which he tried to work out how to integrate a manifold of heterogenous causal factors into a unified whole, thus providing causal coherence to a complete chronology of events. The purpose of my contribution to this issue is to explore the development and substance of this narrative strategy. This article will use Jevons's and Marshall's different cartographies of time as an entry point to understand Marshall's narrative take on the causal explanation of the facts of history.
标记时间:马歇尔对叙事解释连贯性的探索
众所周知,马歇尔在《原则》之后组织工作时遇到了很大的困难。承诺的第二卷从来没有出现过,为了最终出版的《工业与贸易》(1919)和《货币、信贷与商业》(1923),马歇尔煞费苦心地为他的研究寻找合适的表达方式。在《原理》的引言中,马歇尔解释了他对部分均衡分析的依赖,以及更普遍地说,其他条件相同的推理是经济学家的自然方法,他的图表方法非常适合这种方法。但在撰写《原理》时,马歇尔已经更接近经济史了。在1879年6月写给杰文斯的一封信中,他称赞杰文斯的统计工作是“真实”化经济学家抽象理论的重要一步,并承诺将效仿杰文斯的做法。然而,当杰文斯试图充实数学关系,捕捉隐藏在统计数据中的经济因果关系时,马歇尔开始探索一种不同的策略,这种策略解释了他对“数学统计”的批评,以及他最初对图表方法作为发现引擎的热情的减弱。马歇尔没有依赖于每次只考察一个因果因素的其他因素法,而是寻找一种将经济中的因果关系作为一个整体来捕捉的方法。他在《工业与贸易》中著名的题词就是这种方法的简写:“众中有一,众中有一。”从抽象理论和经济事实之间的对立中走出来,马歇尔试图发展一种策略,在经济学家的一般范畴和经济历史学家领域的具体历史事件之间进行调解。马歇尔在《原则》中采用的是“其他因素相同”策略,即通过添加因果因素来改善不完整的分析。与此相反,马歇尔探索了本文所称的叙事策略,即他试图找出如何将多种异质的因果因素整合成一个统一的整体,从而为完整的事件年表提供因果一致性。我写这篇文章的目的是探讨这种叙事策略的发展和实质。本文将以杰文斯和马歇尔不同的时间制图作为切入点,来理解马歇尔对历史事实的因果解释。
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