Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T15:31:22.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comment on Ekelund on Thornton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Michael V. White
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a recent article in this Journal, Robert Ekelund (1997) has renewed his criticism of the discussion of price formation in William Thornton's On Labour (1869) and criticized the work of “modern supporters” of Thornton, such as Kenneth Dennis, Philip Mirowski, Takashi Negishi and myself. While that work differs in the precise significance attributed to On Labour, there is agreement that Thornton's critique of contemporary explanations of “the laws of supply and demand” and/or his discussion of price formation do not warrant the negative and dismissive treatment they have often received from historians of economics. Ekelund disagrees. Based on “preposterous notions,” Thornton's work was “worse than nonsense” and, as he did not understand contemporary explanations of supply and demand, he should “receive a grade of ‘F’; (with strongly worded advice to return to the pursuit of poetry and sociology)” (Ekelund, 1997, pp. 11, 20, 21). Five examples are given below showing that this evaluation of On Labour depends on misinterpretation of the meaning, context and significance of Thornton's analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 1998 , pp. 371 - 374
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

EkelundRobert, B. Robert, B. 1997. “W.T. Thornton: Savant, Idiot, or Idiot-Savant?,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 19, no. 1, 1–23.Google Scholar
EkelundRobert, B. Robert, B. and Shieh, Yeung-Nan. 1989. “Jevons on Utility, Exchange and Demand Theory: A Reassessment,” The Manchester School, 57, no. 1, 17–33.Google Scholar
Jenkin, H. C. Fleeming. 1870. “The Graphic Representation of the Laws of Supply and Demand, and their Application to Labour,” Recess Studies, Edmonston and Douglas, Edinburgh, 151–85.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. Stanley. 1878. Political Economy, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. Stanley. 1905. Principles of Economics, edited by Henry, Higgs, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. Stanley. 1977. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, vol. 6, edited by Collison Black, R. D., Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1965. Principles of Political Economy, 1909, edited by Sir William, Ashley, Augustus M. Kelley, New York.Google Scholar
Thornton, William. 1866. “A New Theory of Supply and Demand,” Fortnightly Review, 6, no. 34, 420–34.Google Scholar
Thornton, William. 1867. “What Determines the Price of Labour or Rate of Wages?,” Fortnightly Review, 7, no. 5, 551–66.Google Scholar
Thornton, William. 1869. On Labour. It's Wrongful Claims and Rightful Duties. Its Actual Present and Possible Future, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Thornton, William. 1876. “Professor Cairnes on Value,” The Contemporary Review, 28, 813–35.Google Scholar
White, Michael V. 1991. “Jevons on Utility, Exchange and Demand Theory: Comment,” The Manchester School, 59, no. 1, 80–83.Google Scholar
White, Michael V. 1994. “‘That God-Forgotten Thornton’: Exorcising Higgling after On Labour,” in Neil De, Marchi and Mary, Morgan (eds.), Higgling: Transactors and their Markets in the History of Economics, Annual Supplement, History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, Durham, 149–83.Google Scholar