The lively debate curated in the JHET’s first virtual issue has kept going. Now we have two new contributions from the participants to keep the conversation going. James Ahiakpor and Alain Béraud and Guy Numa wrote two new pieces on their interpretations of Say’s own view on the possible transformations or continuity of his own thought. Whether Say changed his mind or not seems crucial in our understanding of Say’s Law and how other economists after him interpreted it and used it in the formulation of economic policy.

Access to the French 5th and 6th editions is at the center of this debate. These editions were not translated into English, so only the 4th edition was available to most English Scholars. Béraud and Numa advance Say changed his position in those last editions, and this cannot be ignored. Therefore, what Ahiakpor presents as Keynes’s misinterpretation of Say’s Law, according to Béraud and Numa, could be overcome considering the last two French editions and what they see as the proof of Say’s acknowledgement of the changes in his thinking. Ahiakpor considers this interpretation to be misleading and traces Say’s views to a longer tradition to which he remained attach throughout his works.

These new contributions expand on the questions addressed in the first virtual issue and bring to the debate a new one: access and translation. A topic that goes beyond Say and Say’s law and one that is relevant to most work done in the history of economics and economic thought.

This virtual sequel makes these contribution available to JHET readers so that our debate and knowledge on these issues are richer and may carry on in this format with the advantages of the digital space. 

Rejoinder 1: 

Did J.-B. Say Retrogress in Expounding his Law of Markets or Outlets?  A Comment on Alain Béraud and Guy Numa’s claims of Say’s changed Formulation*

ABSTRACT

Most English speaking scholars use the fourth edition of Jean-Baptiste Say’s Treatise on Political Economy.  Alain Béraud and Guy Numa claim that Say changed his mind on his law of markets or outlets in the fifth and sixth editions, which have not been translated into English.  Their claim focuses mostly on Say’s monetary analysis but which turns out to be consistent with that of David Hume and Adam Smith.  Say drew mostly upon Smith’s Wealth of Nations in formulating his law of markets or outlets whose logic is unaffected by classical monetary analysis.  Béraud and Numa’s claim is thus misleading. 

JEL: B12, B22, B31, E10, E12

 

*James C.W. Ahiakpor, Department of Economics, California State University, East Bay, Hayward, CA.  james.ahiakpor@csueastbay.edu.

Rejoinder 2: 

A Rebuttal of James Ahiakpor's Fallacies and Misrepresentations if Jean-Baptiste Say's Writings and Thinking

Alain Béraud and Guy Numa*

ABSTRACT

James Ahiakpor argues that our “claim that Say changed his mind on his law of markets or outlets in the fifth and sixth editions [of the Treatise]…is misleading.” We disagree emphatically with Ahiakpor’s characterizations. His note is full of errors and misrepresentations. In order to correctly analyze and interpret what Say wrote and meant, one must i) analyze the totality of Say’s writings, ii) study carefully his publications in chronological order, and iii) take into account what Say wrote about his previous positions on key issues, none of which Ahiakpor has done. Ahiakpor’s note is nothing but a selective and biased account of the textual evidence.

* Alain Béraud, THEMA, University of Cergy-Pontoise, France; Guy Numa, Economics Department, Colorado State University, USA. Email: guy.numa@colostate.edu. Translations of Say’s writings are ours unless otherwise noted.