You are on page 1of 5

Surname 1

Student’s Name

Professor’s Name

Course

Date

Annotated Bibliography

Steedman, Ian. "Jevons's Theory of Political Economy and 'Marginalist Revolution'." The
European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, vol 4, no. 1, 1997, pp. 43-64.

When talking About Marginalist revolution there are some doubts among some author about the

existence of it. Who admits the existence have disagreements about the characteristics of the

revolution. The journal of Ian Steedman serves as essential materials for those who might have

interest on Jevons’s theory of political economy and marginalist revolution. The essay is divided

into two parts. In part I, He focused on some significant but conflicting views of marginalist

revolution. Part II mainly draws attention to some work of proponents of marginalist theories. To

draw any definitive conclusion is beyond the reach of the essay. It mainly casts light on some

long-running argument on revolution and Jevons's theory. Though Jevons rejected the wage-fund

theory and natural wage theory and links it with the marginal product he accepted the theory of

population, rent, and the law of supply and demand. Steedman argued that mechanics of utility

and self-interest is the foundation of Jevons's proportionality of price to marginal utility. He also

added that the theory of Jevons lacks the explanation of natural equilibrium and moreover Jevons

was overenthusiastic on utility and consumption aspects of his approach. The traditional theory
Surname 1

of rent was extended to explain interest and wages but he couldn't fill the outline in a watertight

logical manner.

Knoedler, J., and A. Mayhew. "Thorstein Veblen and the Engineers: A Reinterpretation." History
of Political Economy, vol 31, no. 2, 1999, pp. 255-272. Duke University Press, doi:
10.1215/00182702-31-2-255.
In this essay, Knoedler and Mayhew argued that the series of work of Veblen’s under the title

engineers and price system is a semi-popular restatement of his old elaborative work. Knoedler

and Mayhew have presented many evidences and statements which show Veblen’s previous

works are regarded as more important by many scholars. Many critics have argued that the

engineers whom Veblen think changing factor for an economy is a very small portion of the

population. Such scientific collectivism proposed by engineers was something different from

joining the elite class as taking part in managerial decisions on production output. The work of

Veblen was on the fault line of industrial and pecuniary goals and the prediction was that will

lead to economic reorganization. Authors have shown evidence that how Veblen’s view of waste

which he thinks the sabotage of delay and maneuvers can be recovered by using his full potential

of production capacity. Efficient and skilled industrial technicians can make a major contribution

to business while the capital providers are more concerned with pecuniary activities. Gantts

proposed the valuation of industrial capacity should be based on industrial capacity. The

interpretation of Veblen’s on the role of engineers replace the "economic man" to the fictional

term "man the worker".

Álvarez, Andrés, and Vincent Bignon. "L. Walras and C. Menger: Two Ways on the Path of
Modern Monetary Theory." The European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, vol
20, no. 1, 2013, pp. 89-124. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/09672567.2011.596939.
This Journal has focused on various approaches to monetary theory. Andres and Bignon have

argued that Walras and Menger have two different ways to approach the monetary theory. They
Surname 1

showed that how they differ from each other. This paper finds out how their theory on market

and competition theory and goal assigned to monetary theory diverge markedly. The focus on

monetary theory was different from each point of view where Menger focused on the

endogenous drive to use the money to govern exchanges. The intent of Walras was to investigate

the neutrality of money whether they affect the relative prices. The purpose of Andres and

Bignon is to put an argument monetary forward to clarify the main theoretical implication of the

movement for the monetary approach. Walras and Menger both were accordant on the function

of money as the medium of exchange. The difference was the approach to describe the role of

money as the medium of exchange. In the twenty-first century, the monetary model was inspired

by Mengerian monetary theory the purpose of the search was to reintroduce the neo-Walrasian

elements. From The differences of views, Alvarez and Bignon inferred differences among so-

called marginalist theorists.

Lavezzi, Andrea. "Smith, Marshall and Young on Division of Labour and Economic
Growth." The European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, vol 10, no. 1, 2003,
pp. 81-108. Informa UK Limited, doi: 10.1080/0967256032000043805.

Andrea Lavezzi in his work reviewed the salient literature on the classical theory of economic

growth and division of labor. By reviewing the work done by Smith-Marshall-Young, the

proponents of classical economy, how the classical approach is different from the modern

theories. According to Lavezzi, the differences are rooted in general equilibrium. According to

the theory of SMY economic growth is endogenous and the result of the division of labor which

leads to capital accumulation. The specialization of labor creates a higher production. The

growth is path dependent on which the growth depends on past growth of the economy. Lavezzi

focused on how Marshall and young further developed and polished the theory of Smith on

endogenous growth theory. Marshall worked as a bridge between Smith and Young’s
Surname 1

development. Marshall proposed organic growth approach to explaining dynamic characteristics

of the economy on increasing return, competition, and equilibrium. Young explained the

macroeconomic fundamentals of increasing return theory of Marshall. Lavezzi indicates the

characteristics of disequilibrium, in Smith-Marshall-Young model, the number of commodities

and technologies changes for the continuous pressure of competition.

J. Cook, Simon. "On Marshall's Idealism." European Journal Of The History Of Economic
Thought, vol 19, no. 1, 2012, pp. 119-114.

In his, article Cook rationalizes his stand on Marshall’s idealism and how Tiziano Raffaelli

interpreted his work in a wrong way. Cook intended in his arguments to illuminate the

differences between the view of Raffaelli and himself. Cook had focused in his book on the issue

on “Crisis of faith” related to the intellectual development of Marshall. Cook assumed that

Marshall never discarded his early faith in idealism. As he didn’t find any further documentation

he explored another path, the mature discussion of Marshall on moral characters which implies

that moral strength is spiritual. Raffaelli claimed that Marshall postulated self-consciousness is

dead as he showed the agnostic view on Ye Machine. Cook argued that Marshall didn’t abandon

his initial idealism rather developed it in the other way. Cook claimed that Hegel’s Philosophy of

History was influential on Marshall’s modified version of the philosophy of history. Cook further

argued Marshall was not able to articulate a systematic and coherent way of presenting his

metaphysical position. Raffaelli claimed Cook has downgraded the mechanical model. But Cook

argued that the work of Marshall was not a focus he tried to develop the link between his work

and the intellectual development which lead him to a reformed man of science.
Surname 1

Works cited

Álvarez, Andrés, and Vincent Bignon. "L. Walras and C. Menger: Two Ways on the Path of
Modern Monetary Theory." The European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, vol
20, no. 1, 2013, pp. 89-124. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/09672567.2011.596939.
J. Cook, Simon. "On Marshall's Idealism." European Journal Of The History Of Economic
Thought, vol 19, no. 1, 2012, pp. 119-114.
Knoedler, J., and A. Mayhew. "Thorstein Veblen and the Engineers: A Reinterpretation." History
of Political Economy, vol 31, no. 2, 1999, pp. 255-272. Duke University Press,
doi:10.1215/00182702-31-2-255.
Lavezzi, Andrea. "Smith, Marshall and Young on Division of Labour and Economic
Growth." The European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, vol 10, no. 1, 2003,
pp. 81-108. Informa UK Limited, doi:10.1080/0967256032000043805.
Steedman, Ian. "Jevons's Theory of Political Economy and 'Marginalist Revolution'." The
European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, vol 4, no. 1, 1997, pp. 43-64.