John Elliot Cairnes and the ‘Rehabilitation’ of the Classical Wage Fund Doctrine

M. Donoghue
{"title":"John Elliot Cairnes and the ‘Rehabilitation’ of the Classical Wage Fund Doctrine","authors":"M. Donoghue","doi":"10.1111/1467-9957.00114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"John Elliot Cairnes is primarily remembered for his defence of the classical wage fund doctrine, and for his attempt to revive the classical system of economic thought in the mid-1870s. In contrast with this standard textbook appraisal of Cairnes, the Jevons–Marshall–Vint thesis contends that, in attempting to revitalize the doctrine, Cairnes in fact explained away so much of what characterized it that its final form bore little resemblance to the doctrine held by his classical predecessors. In this paper we dispute the Jevons–Marshall–Vint thesis and argue that Cairnes’s recasting of the doctrine did fit entirely within the classical framework. Why Cairnes should have rallied in support of a doctrine by then widely condemned, partly because of Mill’s alleged retraction of it and partly because of newly emerging ideas on wages and unions, is not difficult to explain. The recurring economic stagnation in Ireland, which acted as a bulwark against industrialization there, together with the social, moral and economic dilemma created by the growth of trade unionism in Britain, presented political economists with a particular set of problems. For these, as Cairnes saw it, classical political economy, as a coherent method of analysis, provided the best hope of showing the way towards possible remedies.","PeriodicalId":83172,"journal":{"name":"The Manchester school of economic and social studies","volume":"37 1","pages":"396-417"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Manchester school of economic and social studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9957.00114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

John Elliot Cairnes is primarily remembered for his defence of the classical wage fund doctrine, and for his attempt to revive the classical system of economic thought in the mid-1870s. In contrast with this standard textbook appraisal of Cairnes, the Jevons–Marshall–Vint thesis contends that, in attempting to revitalize the doctrine, Cairnes in fact explained away so much of what characterized it that its final form bore little resemblance to the doctrine held by his classical predecessors. In this paper we dispute the Jevons–Marshall–Vint thesis and argue that Cairnes’s recasting of the doctrine did fit entirely within the classical framework. Why Cairnes should have rallied in support of a doctrine by then widely condemned, partly because of Mill’s alleged retraction of it and partly because of newly emerging ideas on wages and unions, is not difficult to explain. The recurring economic stagnation in Ireland, which acted as a bulwark against industrialization there, together with the social, moral and economic dilemma created by the growth of trade unionism in Britain, presented political economists with a particular set of problems. For these, as Cairnes saw it, classical political economy, as a coherent method of analysis, provided the best hope of showing the way towards possible remedies.
约翰·艾略特·凯恩斯与古典工资基金理论的“复兴”
约翰·艾略特·凯恩斯(John Elliot Cairnes)之所以为人所铭记,主要是因为他捍卫了经典的工资基金理论,并试图在19世纪70年代中期复兴经典的经济思想体系。与对凯恩斯的标准教科书评价相反,杰文斯-马歇尔-文特的论文认为,在试图重振凯恩斯主义的过程中,凯恩斯实际上解释了太多的特征,以至于它的最终形式与他的古典前辈所持有的学说几乎没有相似之处。在本文中,我们对杰文斯-马歇尔-文特的论点提出了质疑,并认为凯恩斯对这一学说的重塑确实完全符合古典框架。凯恩斯为何会团结起来支持一种当时受到广泛谴责的理论,这并不难解释,部分原因是密尔被指撤回了这一理论,部分原因是关于工资和工会的新观点。爱尔兰反复出现的经济停滞,作为该国工业化的堡垒,再加上英国工会主义的增长所造成的社会、道德和经济困境,给政治经济学家带来了一系列特别的问题。凯恩斯认为,对于这些问题,古典政治经济学作为一种连贯的分析方法,最有希望为人们指明可能的补救之路。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书