Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:27:25.446Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

John Neville Keynes's Solution to the English Methodenstreit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Gregory Moore
Gregory Moore
Affiliation:
School of Business, Australian Catholic University, Victoria, Australia, 3065.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

John Neville Keynes is best known for being the father of John Maynard Keynes and for writing The Scope and Method of Political Economy (1891). The lesser of these achievements was widely accepted as the definitive methodological tract in the field of political economy in the late-Victorian period. In this publication Keynes shed new light on many of the pressing methodological and epistemological problems of the day; he supplied the methodological underpinnings to Alfred Marshall's majestic synthesis of late-Victorian theoretical opinion, as articulated in his Principles of Economics (1890); and, whatis of paramount concern to me in this paper, he employed some deft rhetoric to hasten the end of the long and acrimonious methodological debate between the orthodox and historical economists that is now generally referred to as the English Methodenstreit or “battle of methods.” Keynes consciously strove to provide a solution to the “battle of methods” that would be acceptable to both the orthodox and historical economists and, for this reason, The Scope and Method is understandably characterized by a conciliatory tone and repeated, almost desperate, attempts to see value in arguments from both sides of the conceptual divide. Keynes nonetheless failed in his quest to be even-handed. He was a logician of the first order who was extremely impressed by the neat logical lines of the orthodox framework, and hence, for all his intellectual honesty and obvious good will, he could not help but interpret the debate through orthodox spectacles. The chief rhetorical ploy he drew upon to achieve this orthodox-leaning settlement between the principal antagonists was the unconscious one of the “passive-aggressive” in which the advocate repeatedly makes the outward motions of conceding ground while, in effect, conceding little. The specific mechanics of this strategy entailed reformulating each precept from the historicist conceptual framework so that it would not be in conflict with its nearest orthodox opposite (itself carefully reinterpreted by Keynes), either by showing that it was identical to this orthodox opposite or by arguing that different precepts were appropriate in different situations, and then dismissing the entire methodological debate—which was then in its third decade—as one long and lamentable misunderstanding. Keynes was ably assisted in executing this strategy by his Cambridge colleagues and, for this reason, the quest to settle the debate by providing orthodox interpretations of the precepts then at stake may be termed the “Cambridge solution.” Marshall and Henry Sidgwick played particularly important roles in carrying this rhetorical assault, as the former's more genuine sympathy for many of the historicist ideas and the latter's celebrated honesty made the Cambridge quest appear sincere.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2003 , pp. 5 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2003

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

The John Neville Keynes Diaries, 1864–1917 (ADD 7831–38). Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Argyrous, G. 1990. “The Growth of Knowledge and Economic Science: Marshall's Interpretation of Classical Economists.” History of Political Economy 22 (3): 528–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, W. J. 1907. “The Present Position of Political Economy.” Economic Journal 17 (68): 467–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashley, W. J. 1927. “The Place of Economic History in University Studies.” Economic History Review 1 (1): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, R. D. C., ed. 1972–1981. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, 7 vols. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, M. 1980. The Methodology of Economics or How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. von. 1890. “The Historical vs the Deductive Method in Political Economy,” translated by H. Leonard. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1 (10): 244–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broad, C. D. and Pigou, A. C.. 1950. “Obituary of J. N. Keynes.” Economic Journal 60 (238): 403–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairnes, J. E. 1870. “Political Economy and Laissez-Faire.” In Essays in Political Economy. New York: A.M. Kelly, 1965, pp. 232–64.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. 1961. What is History? Middlesex, UK: Penguin, 1964.Google Scholar
Clapham, J. H. 1922. “On Empty Economic Boxes.” Economic Journal 32 (127): 305–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. 1975. “Marshall on Method.” Journal of Law and Economics 18 (1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coats, A. W. 1954. “The Historist Reaction in English Political Economy 1870–1890.” Economica n.s. 21 (82): 143–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coats, A. W. 1968. “Political Economy and the Tariff Reform Campaign of 1903.” Journal of Law and Economics. 11 (04): 181–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, D. C. 1987. History and the Economic Past: An Account of the Rise and Decline of Economic History in Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, W. 1882. The Growth of English Industry and Commerce. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deane, P. 1987. “Keynes, John Neville.” In Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., and Newman, P., eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, vol. 3. London: Macmillan, p. 42.Google Scholar
Deane, P. 1997. “J. Neville Keynes: A Dedicated Victorian Don.” In Arestis, P. et al. , Capital Controversy, Post Keynesian Economics and the History of Economic Thought: Essays in Honour of Geoff Harcourt, Vol. I. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deane, P. 2001. The Life and Times of J. Neville Keynes: A Beacon in the Tempest. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y. 1891. Review of The Scope and Method of Political Economy, by J. N. Keynes. In Papers Relating to Political Economy, Vol. III. New York: Burt Franklin, 1925, pp. 3–7.Google Scholar
Foxwell, H. S. 1887. “The Economic Movementin England.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 2 (10): 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–43.Google Scholar
Gras, N. S. B. 1927. “The Rise and Developmentof Economic History.” Economic History Review. 1 (1): 12–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenewegen, P. D. 1995. A Soaring Eagle: Alfred Marshall 1842–1924. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Harrod, R. F. 1951. The Life of John Maynard Keynes. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hollander, S. 1985. The Economics ofJohn Stuart Mill, 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hutchison, T. W. 1953. A Review of Economic Doctrines, 1870–1929. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hutchison, T. W. 1964. “Positive” Economics and Policy Objectives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, J. K. 1885. “Political Economy.” In Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edition. London: Adam & Charles Black.Google Scholar
Ingram, J. K. 1888. A History of Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1967.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1865. The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines, 3rd edition, edited by Flux, A. W.. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1965.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1876. “The Future of Political Economy.” Fortnightly Review n.s. 20 (11): 617–31.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1879. The Theory of Political Economy, With Preface and Notes and An Extension of the Bibliography of Mathematical Economic Writings, 5th edition. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1965.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1882b. The State in Relation to Labour. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1883. Methods of Social Reform and Other Papers, edited by Jevons, H. A.. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1968.Google Scholar
Kadish, A. 1982. The Oxford Economists of the Late Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kadish, A. 1989. Historians, Economists and Economic History. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keynes, G. 1975. “The Early Years.” In Keynes, M., ed., Essays on John Maynard Keynes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–35.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1879a. “‘Matter of Fact’ Logic.” Mind 4 (13): 120–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1879b. “On the Position of Formal Logic.” Mind 4 (15): 362–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1884a. “Review of A Textbook of Deductive Logic for the Use of Students, by P. K. Ray.” Mind 9 (36): 587–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1884b. Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic, 3rd enlarged edition. London: Macmillan, 1894.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1891. The Scope and Method of Political Economy, 4th edition. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1965.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1894–1899. “Relativity, Principle of, in Political Economy.” Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy, vol. 3., edited by Higgs, H.. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1963, pp. 276–79.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1900. “Obituary of Henry Sidgwick.” Economic Journal 10 (12): 585–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1911. “Jevons, William Stanley.” In Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 15, 11th edition. New York: The Encyclopædia Britannica Company, pp. 361–62.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. N. 1936. “Herbert Somerton Foxwell.” Economic Journal 46 (184): 589–614.Google Scholar
Koot, G. M. 1987. English Historical Economics, 1870–1926: The Rise of Economic History and Neomercantilism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koot, G. M. 1993. “Historians and Economists: The Study of Economic History in Britain ca. 1920–1950.” History of Political Economy. 25 (4): 641–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1870. “The Political Economy of Adam Smith.” In Essays in Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969, pp. 21–40.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1876. “On the Philosophical Method of Political Economy.” In Essays in Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969, pp. 163–90.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1879a. “Political Economy and Sociology.” In Essays in Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969, pp. 191–220.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1879b. “The Known and the Unknown in the Economic World.” In Essays in Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969, pp. 221–42.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. 1878a. “Recent Attacks on Political Economy.” The Nineteenth Century 4 (21): 858–68.Google Scholar
Maine, H. 1861. Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and its Relation to Modern Ideas. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.Google Scholar
Maine, H. 1871. Village Communities in the East and West, 4th edition. London: John Murray, 1881.Google Scholar
Maloney, J. 1985. Marshall, Orthodoxy and the Professionalisation of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1872. “Mr. Jevons' Theory of Political Economy.” In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966, pp. 93–100.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1876. “Mr. Mill's Theory of Value.” In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966, pp 119–33.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1885. “The Present Position of Economics.” In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966, pp. 152–73.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1892. “A Reply to Dr. Cunningham.” Economic Journal 2 (7): 507–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A. 1897. “The Old Generation of Economists and the New.” In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. Augustus M. Kelley. N.Y, 1966, pp. 295–311.Google Scholar
Marshall, M. P. 1947. What I Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1883. Investigations into the Method ofthe Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics, edited by Schneider, L., translated by F. C. Nock. Formerly published as Problems of Economics and Sociology. New York: New York University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1836. “On the Definition of Political Economy.” In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. 4, edited by Robson, J. M.. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press, 1967, pp. 309–39.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1843. A System of Logic: In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vols. 7 and 8, edited by Robson, J. M.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973–1974.Google Scholar
Moggridge, D. E. 1992. Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. C. G. 1995. 1995. “The Role of Cliffe Leslie in the Early Stages of the English Methodenstreit.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 17 (Spring): 57–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. C. G. 1996a. “The Practical Economics of Walter Bagehot.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 18 (Fall): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. C. G. 1996b. “Robert Lowe and the Role of the Vulgar Economist in the English Methodenstreit.” Journal of Economic Methodology 3 (1): 69–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. C. G. 1999. “John Kells Ingram, the Comtean Movement, and the English Methodenstreit.” History of Political Economy 31 (1): 53–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. C. G. 2000a. “Ruskin on Political Economy, or ‘Being Preached to Death by a Mad Governess’.” History of Economics Review 31 (Winter): 70–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, G. C. G. 2000b. “Ingram Versus Nicholson on the History of Political Economy and a Charge of Plagiarism”. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (12): 433–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, J. S. 1878. The Effects of Machinery on Wages. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co.Google Scholar
Nicholson, J. S. 1885. “An Article on Political Economy in the Encyclopaedia Britannica.” The Scotsman Saturday, 06 27.Google Scholar
Nicholson, J. S. 1888. “A History of Political Economy, by John Kells Ingram.” The Scotsman Monday, 04 23.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1925a. “In Memoriam: Alfred Marshall.” In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966, pp. 81–90.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C., ed. 1925b. “Marshall's Letters.” In Pigou, A. C., ed., Memorials of Alfred Marshall. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1966, pp 371–496.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1960. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 5th edition. London: Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar
Price, L. L. 1887. Industrial Peace: Its Advantages, Methods and Difficulties, A Report of the Inquiry Made for the Toynbee Trust. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Price, L. L. 1891a. A Short History of Political Economy in England from Adam Smith to Arnold Toynbee, 12th edition. London: Methuen, 1924.Google Scholar
Price, L. L. 1891b. “Review of An Introduction to Political Economy, by R. T. Ely, with an introduction by J.K. Ingram.” Economic Journal 1 (3): 609–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, E. A. G. 1946. “John Maynard Keynes 1883–1946.” In Lekachman, R., ed., Keynes' General Theory: Reports of Three Decades. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1964, pp. 13–95.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. London: Allen and Unwin, 1986.Google Scholar
Searle, G. R. 1971. The Quest for National Efficiency: A Study in British Politics and Political Thought. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Semmel, B. 1960. Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social Imperial Thought. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1879. “Economic Method.” Fortnightly Review n.s. 25 (02): 301–18.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1883. Principles of Political Economy. London: Macmillan, 1901.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1885. 1885 “The Scope and Method of Economic Science.” In Smyth, R. L., ed., Essays in Economic Method. London: Duckworth, 1962, pp. 73–97.Google Scholar
Skidelsky, R. 1983. John Maynard Keynes: Hopes Betrayed 1883–1920. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Snow, C. P. 1959. “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution.” In Public Affairs. London: Macmillan, 1971, pp 13–46.Google Scholar
Tilman, R. and Porter-Tilman, R., 1995. “John Neville Keynes: The Social Philosophy of A Late Victorian Economist.” Journal of History of Economic Thought 17 (Fall): 184–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toynbee, A. 1884. Lectures on the Industrial Revolution of the Eighteenth Century in England: Popular Addresses, Notes and Other Fragments. Devon, UK: David and Charles Reprints, 1969.Google Scholar
Thornton, W. T. 1870. On Labour: Its Wrongful Claims and Rightful Dues, Its Actual Present and Possible Future, 2nd edition. Shannon: Irish University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Whitaker, J.K. 1972. “Alfred Marshall: The Years 1877 to 1885.” History of Political Economy 4: 1–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, J.K., ed. 1996. The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall: Economist, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yeo, R. 1985. “An Idol of the Market-Place: Baconianism in Nineteenth Century Britain.” History of Science 23: 251–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed