Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T20:16:25.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Malthus and Ricardo: Two styles for Economic Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Sergio Cremaschi  and
Marcelo Dascal
Sergio Cremaschi
Affiliation:
Department of PhilosophyUniversità degli Studi, Vercelli
Marcelo Dascal
Affiliation:
Department of PhilosophyTel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine the most famous controversy between economists — the one between Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo — as a means of shedding fresh light on the current debate about economic methodology. By focusing on this controversy as the primary unit of analysis, we show how methodological considerations are but one of a whole set of stratagems employed by each opponent. We argue that each opponent's preference for a particular kind of stratagem expresses his own specific scientific style (within the general scientific and cultural style of an age). We also describe a dynamic dimension of the controversy, independent of the participants' intentions. Such a dimension is analyzed in one of the “cycles” of the controversy, which begins with a well-defined issue and expands to additional topics, without reaching a “solution” of the initial issue. The Controversy, thus, does not yield a solution of a given problem nor persuasion of the adversary — its presumable aims. Rather, its “benefit” seems to lie in an unintended result — the clarification and deepening of contrasting approaches to the discipline. Insofar as the history of a discipline requires a reconstruction of such contrasts, it is indispensable that it take into account the controversies where they emerge, and view both the positive doctrines and the methodological postures of the contenders as parts of a wider framework, within which the notion of a scientific style — which this paper attempts to clarify — looms large.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Summer 1998 , pp. 229 - 254
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

Beauchamp, T. L. 1987. “Ethical theory and the problem of closure.” In Engelhardt and Caplan, 1987, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
Buffon, Georges 1753. Discours sur le style.Google Scholar
Cremaschi, S. 1996. Review of D. N. McCloskey, “Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics.” Pragmatics and Cognition 4.2:425–429.Google Scholar
Cremaschi, S., and Dascal, M. 1996. “Malthus and Ricardo on Economic Methodology.” History of Political Economy 28(3):475–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cremaschi, S., and Dascal, M. 1998. “Persuasion and Argument in the Malthus-Ricardo Correspondence.” In Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology. 16.Google Scholar
Crombie, A. C. 1994. Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition, 3 vols. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1990. “The Controversy about Ideas and the Idea of Controversy,” in Scientific and Philosophical Controversies edited by Gil, F., 61–100. Lisboa: Editora Fragmentos.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1995. “Epistemología, controversias y prágmatica.” Isegoría 12:8–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dascal, M. 1996. “La Balanza de la Razón.” In La racionalidad: su poder ysus limites, edited by Nudler, O., 363–381. Buenos Aires: Paidós.Google Scholar
Dascal, M. 1998. “Types of Polemics and Types of Polemical Moves.” In Dialogue Analysis VI (Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Dialogue Analysis — Prague, 1996), vol. 1, edited by Mejrková, S. et al. , 15–33.Tübingen: Hiemeyer.Google Scholar
Dascal, M., and Cremaschi, S.. Forthcoming. “The Malthus-Ricardo Correspondence: Sequential Structure, Argumentative Strategies, and Rationality.” Journal of Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle: Les Notions Philosophiques. Dictionnaire, 2 vols. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (1990).Google Scholar
Engelhardt, T. H. Jr, and Caplan, A. L., eds. 1987. Scientific Controversy: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, , Ludwik, , [1935] 1980. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. H. 1968. “Style.” In International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. 18 vols. New York: Macmillan - Free Press. 15: 352–61.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, G.-G. 1959. “Sur la connaissance philosophique.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 13:96–111.Google Scholar
Granger, G.-G. 1968. Essai d'une philosophie du style. Paris: A. Collin.Google Scholar
Gross, A. 1990. The Rhetoric of Science, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1982. “Language, Truth and Reason.” In Rationality and Relativism, edited by Hollis, M. and Lukes, S., 48–66. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1992. “Style for Historians and Philosophers.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalil, E. L. 1992. “Fox, Hedgehog, and Owl: Three Temperaments in Economic Discourse.” Methodus 4.1:101–109.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. [1933] 1972. “Thomas Robert Malthus.” In Essays in Biography. Cambridge: Macmillan and St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Le Guern, M. 1990. “Style” [ling.]. In Encyclopédic Philosophique Universelle, II: 2473–75.Google Scholar
Malthus, T. R. 1986. The Works of Thomas Robert Malthus. 8 vols. Ed by Wrigley, E. A. and Souden, D.. London: Pickering.Google Scholar
Malthus, T. R. [1813]. Observations on the Effects of the Corn Laws. In Malthus 1986. 7:87–109.Google Scholar
Malthus, T. R. [1820, 1836] 1989. Principles of Political Economy. Variorum edition edited by Pullen, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Royal Economic Society.Google Scholar
McCloskey, D. N. 1994. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. 1987. “Scientific Controversy and its Termination.” In Engelhardt and Caplan, 1987. 49–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moulin, A.-M. 1990. “Style” [épist. Géné. In Encyclopédie Philosophique Universelle, 2, 2473.Google Scholar
Paglin, M. [1961] 1973. Malthus and Lauderdale. The Anti-Ricardian Tradition. Clifton, NJ: Kelley.Google Scholar
Ricardo, D. 1951–1973. The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. 11 vols. Edited by Sraffa, P. with the collaboration of Dobb., M. H. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ricardo, D. [1928] 1951. Notes on Mr. Malthus. In Ricardo 1951–1973. II.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1978. “The Canonical Classical Model of Political Economy,” Journal of Economic Literature 16:1415–1434.Google Scholar
Würgler, H. 1957. Malthus als Kritiker der Klassik. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der klassischen Wirtschaftstheorie. Winterthur: Keller.Google Scholar