Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:44:17.618Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Denying Human Homogeneity: Eugenics & The Making of Post-Classical Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Sandra J. Peart  and
David M. Levy
Sandra J. Peart
Affiliation:
Economics Department, Baldwin-Wallace College, 275 Eastland Rd., Berea, OH 44017
David M. Levy
Affiliation:
James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy, George Mason University, MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax, VA 22030
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The question we propose to address is how did economics move from the classical period characterized by the hardest possible doctrine of initial human homogeneityall the observed differences among people arise from incentives, luck, and historyto become comfortable with accounts of human behavior which alleged foundational differences among and within races of people? (Darity 1995) In this paper, we shall argue that early British eugenics thinkers racialized economics in the post-classical period.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 261 - 288
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

Aldrich, Mark. 1975. Capital Theory and Racism: From Laissez-Faire to the Eugenics Movement in the Career of Irving Fisher. Review of Radical Political Economics 7 (3): 3342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Robert Loring. 1993. Irving Fisher: A Biography. Cambridge, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
The Anthropological News: Death of the Best Man in England. 1870. Anthropological Review 8 (01): 97.Google Scholar
Anthropology at the British Association. 1863. Anthropological Review 1 (11): 37989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1972. The Theory of Discrimination. In Ashenfelter, Orley and Rees, Albert, eds., Discrimination in Labor Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bagehot, Walter. 1885. The Postulates of English Political Economy. Introduction by Alfred Marshall. Student's edition. New York & London, G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Banton, Michael. 1977. The Idea of Race. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Mrs Barrington, Russell. 1933. The Love-letters of Walter Bagehot and Eliza Wilson, Written from 10 November, 1857 to 23 April, 1858. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Beddoe, John. 1870. Anthropology and Politics: Kelts and Saxons. The Anthropological Review 8 (04): 21516.Google Scholar
Cairnes, J. E. 1865. The Negro Suffrage. Macmillan's Magazine 12 (08): 33443.Google Scholar
Carlyle, Thomas. 1849. Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question. Frasers Magazine for Town and Country 40: 67079.Google Scholar
Carlyle, Thomas. 1867. Shooting Niagara: And After? London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Cherry, Robert. 1976. Racial Thought and the Early Economics Profession. Review of Social Economy 34 (2): 14762. Reprinted in William Darity Jr., ed., Economics and Discrimination, Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar, 1995, pp. 1732.Google Scholar
Collard, David. 1996. Pigou and Future Generations: A Cambridge Tradition. Cambridge Journal of Economics 20 (09): 58597.Google Scholar
Commons, J. R. 1916. Races and Immigration in America. NewYork: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Curtis, L. P. Jr. 1968. Anglo-Saxons and Celts. Bridgeport, CT: Conference on British Studies at the University of Bridgeport.Google Scholar
Curtis, L. P. Jr. 1997. Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature, revised edition. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Darity, William Jr. 1995. Introduction. In Economics and Discrimination. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Darwin, Leonard. 1916a. On the Statistical Studies Needed After the War in Connection with Eugenics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 79: (03): 15988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Leonard. 1916b. Quality Not Quantity. The Eugenics Review 8 (04): 297321.Google Scholar
Darwin, Leonard. 1919. Eugenics in Relation to Economics and Statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 82: (01): 127, with discussion by E. W. Macbride, pp. 3031.Google Scholar
Darwin, Charles. 1989. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Vol. 21 of The Works of Charles Darwin, edited by Barrett, Paul H. & Freeman, R. B.. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Desmond, Adrian. 1994. Huxley: The Devil's Disciple. London: M. Joseph.Google Scholar
Duff, M. E. Grant. 1881. Address of the President of Section F, Economics Science and Statistics, of the British Association. Journal of the Statistical Society of London 44 (12): 64959.Google Scholar
Economic Science and the British Association. 1877. Journal of the Statistical Society of London. 40 (September): 46876.Google Scholar
Fetter, Frank A, Bailey, William B., Potter, Henry C., Balch, Emily, Rubinow, I. M., Veditz, C. W. A., and Wilcox, Walter E.. 1907. Western Civilization and Birth-Rate-Discussion. Publications of the American Economic Association, third series, vol. 8, pp. 9093.Google Scholar
Fetter, Frank A, Bailey, William B., Potter, Henry C., Balch, Emily, Rubinow, I. M., Veditz, C. W. A., and Wilcox, Walter E.. 1916. Modern Economic Problems. NY: The Century Co.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1907. The Rate of Interest. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1909. National Vitality, its Wastes and Conservation. New York: Arno Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1930. The Theory of Interest. Fairfield, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley, 1986.Google Scholar
Freeden, Michael. 1979. Eugenics and Progressive Thought: A Study in Ideological Affinity. The Historical Journal 3 (09): 64571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1865. Hereditary Talent and Character. Macmillan's Magazine 12 (06 & 08): 15766, 31827.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1892. Finger Prints. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1892. Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences. London: Julian Friedmann, 1978.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1904. Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims. American Journal of Sociology 10 (07): 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1907a. One Vote, One Value. In Letter to the Editor of Nature 75 (02 28, 1949): 414.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1907b. Vox Populi. Nature 75 (03 7, 1949): 45051.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1908. Memories of My Life. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Greg, W. R. 1868. On the Failure of Natural Selection in the Case of Man. Fraser's Magazine for Town and Country 78 (09): 35362.Google Scholar
Greg, W. R. 1869. The Realities of Irish Life. Quarterly Review 126 (01): 6180.Google Scholar
Greg, W. R. 1875. Enigmas of Life. Boston: James R. Osgood and Company.Google Scholar
Greg, W. R. 1876. Mistaken Aims and Attainable Ideals of the Artizan Class. London: Trubner and Company.Google Scholar
Hankins, F. H. 1923. Individual Differences and Democratic Theory. Political Science Quarterly 38 (3): 388412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, James P. 1994. The Place of Economics in the Hierarchy of the Sciences: Section F From Whewell to Edgeworth. In Mirowski, Philip, ed., Natural Images in Economic Thought: Markets Read in Tooth and Claw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 484535.Google Scholar
Hunt, James. 1863. The Negro's Place in Nature: A Paper Read before the London Anthropological Society. New York: Van Evrie, Horton & Co, 1864.Google Scholar
Hunt, James. 1866. Race in Legislation and Political Economy. The Anthropological Review 4 (04): 11335.Google Scholar
Jevons, William Stanley. 1869. A Deduction from Darwin's Theory. Nature 1 (12 30): 23132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jevons, William Stanley. 1870. Opening Address of the President of Section F (Economic Science and Statistics), of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society of London 33: (09): 30926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jevons, William Stanley. 1871. Theory of Political Economy, 4th edition. London: Macmillan, 1911.Google Scholar
Keith, Arthur. 1917. Presidential Address. How Can the Institute Best Serve the Needs of Anthropology. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 47 (01 06): 1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, Arthur. 1920. Galton's Place Among Anthropologists. Eugenics Review 12 (04): 1428.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1937. Some Economic Consequences of a Declining Population. The Eugenics Review 29 (04 1937January 1938): 1317.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank H. 1931. Professor Fisher's Interest Theory: A Case in Point. Journal of Political Economy 39 (2): 176212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, Theodore. 1976. Alfred Marshall: Victorian Relevance for Modern Economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics 90 (08): 42543.Google Scholar
Levy, David M. 2001a. Economics Texts as Apocrypha. In Forget, Evelyn L. and Peart, Sandra J., eds., Reflections on the Classical Canon: Essays In Honor of Samuel Hollander. London: Routledge, pp. 40050.Google Scholar
Levy, David M. 2001b. How the Dismal Science Got Its Name: Debating Victorian Racial Quackery. Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23 (1): 535.Google Scholar
Levy, David M. and Peart, Sandra J. 2001 2002. The Secret History of the Dismal Science. www.econlib.org.Google Scholar
Levy, David M. and Peart, Sandra J.. 2002. Francis Galton's Two Papers on Voting as Robust Estimation. Public Choice 113 (34): 35765.Google Scholar
Lorimer, Douglas. 1978. Colour, Class and the Victorians. Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1883. The Housing of the London Poor. Contemporary Review 45 (02): 22431Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics, 8th edition. London: Macmillan, 1930.Google Scholar
McDougall, William. 1907. A Practicable Eugenic Solution. Sociological Papers iii: 5589.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1848. The Principles of Political Economy. Volume II of Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by Robson, J. M.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Phillip. 1989. More Heat than Light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Phillip. 1994. Natural Images in Economic Thought: Markets Read In Tooth and Claw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Myres, John L. 1944. A Century of Our Work. Man 44 (01 02): 29.Google Scholar
Pearson, Karl. 1924. The Life, Labours and Letters of Francis Galton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, Karl and Elderton, Ethel M.. 1925. Foreward. Annals of Eugenics 1 (10): 14.Google Scholar
Pearson, Karl and Moul, Margaret. 1925. The Problem of Alien Immigration into Great Britain Illustrated by an Examination of Russian and Polish Jewish Children. Annals of Eugenics 1 (10): 5127.Google Scholar
Peart, Sandra. 2000. Irrationality and Intertemporal Choice in Early Neoclassical Thought. Canadian Journal of Economics 33 (1): 17588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peart, Sandra. 2001a. Facts Carefully Marshalled in the Empirical Studies of William Stanley Jevons. In Klein, Judy L. and Morgan, Mary S., eds., The Age of Measurement, Annual Supplement to Volume 33 History of Political Economy. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 25276.Google Scholar
Peart, Sandra. 2001b. Theory, Application and the Canon: The Case of Mill and Jevons. In Forget, Evelyn L. and Peart, Sandra J., eds., Reflections on the Classical Canon in Economics: Essays in Honor of Samuel Hollander. London: Routledge, pp. 35678.Google Scholar
Peart, Sandra J. and Levy, David M.. 2002. Modeling Non-Abstract Economic Man: Victorian Anthropology, Punch & Piltdown. Presented at the March 2002 European Conference on the History of Economics, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Persky, Joseph 1990. Retrospectives: A Dismal Romantic. Journal of Economic Perspectives 4 (4): 16572.Google Scholar
Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism. American Economic Review 62 (4): 65961.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1907. Social Improvement and Modern Biology. Economic Journal 17 (3): 35869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare, 3rd edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Porter, Theodore M. 1986. The Rise of Statistical Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Proctor, Robert N. 1991. Eugenics among the Social Sciences. In Brown, JoAnne and van Keuren, David K., eds., The Estate of Social Knowledge. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 175208.Google Scholar
Rainger, Ronald. 1978. Race, Politics, and Science: The Anthropological Society of London in the 1860s. Victorian Studies 22 (Autumn): 5170.Google Scholar
Reade, W. Winwood. 1864. Savage Africa: Being the Narrative of a Tour in Equatorial, Southwestern, and Northwestern Africa; with Notes on the Habits of the Gorilla; on the Existence of Unicorns and Tailed men; on the Slave-Trade; on the Origin, Character, and Capabilities of the Negro, and on the Future Civilization of Western Africa. New York: Harper & Brothers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, B. Archdall. 1906. The Biological Foundations of Sociology, (paper read October 24, 1905, to the Sociological Society, with comments by C. W. Saleeby, H. Ashby, and H. Bernard). Sociological Papers 3: 351.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 2002. New Translations from Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (translated by Markus C. Becker and Thorbjrn Knudsen). American Journal of Economics and Sociology 61 (2): 40537.Google Scholar
Semmel, Bernard. 1962. The Governor Eyre Controversy. London: Macgibbon & Kee.Google Scholar
Senior, Nassau W. 1860. Opening Address of Nassau W. Senior, Esq., as President of Section F (Economic Science and Statistics), at the Meeting of the British Association, at Oxford, 28th June, 1860. Journal of the Statistical Society of London 23 (09): 35761.Google Scholar
Soloway, Richard A. 1995. Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birthrate in Twentieth-Century Britain. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, edited by Todd, W. B.. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Spencer, Frank. 1986. Ecce Homo: An Annotated Bibliographic History of Physical Anthropology. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Spengler, J. J. 1955. Marshall on the Population Question. Part II. Population Studies 9 (1): 5566.Google Scholar
Spengler, J. J. 1966. The Economist and the Population Question. American Economic Review 56 (03): 124.Google Scholar
Stepan, Nancy. 1982. The Idea of Race in Science. Hamden, CT: Archon Books.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1941. Production and Distribution Theories. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. and Becker, Gary S.. 1977. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. American Economic Review 67 (2): 7690.Google Scholar
Stocking, George W. Jr. 1971. What's in a Name? The Origins of the Royal Anthropological Institute (183771). Man 6 (09): 36990.Google Scholar
Stone, Richard. 1980. Political Economy, Economics and Beyond. Economic Journal 90 (360): 71936.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. Arthur. 1906. The Sociological Appeal to Biology. (paper read March 14 to the Sociological Society) Sociological Papers 3: 15794.Google Scholar
Von Mises, Ludwig. 1949. Human Action. London: William Hodge.Google Scholar
Walker, Francis A. 1881. The Colored Race in the United States. The Forum 2: 501509. In William Darity Jr., ed., Economics and Discrimination. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar, 1995, pp. 3341.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. R. 1864. The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from the Theory of Natural Selection. Journal of the Anthropology Society of London 2: clviiicixx.Google Scholar
Webb, Sidney. 1910. Eugenics and the Poor Law: The Minority Report. The Eugenics Review 2 (11): 23341.Google Scholar
Wells, H. G. 1904. Discussion of Galton Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope, and Aims. American Journal of Sociology 10 (07): 1011.Google Scholar
White, Michael V. 1994. Bridging the Natural and the Social: Science and Character in Jevons's Political Economy. Economic Inquiry 32 (07): 42944.Google Scholar
Winch, Donald. 1972. Marginalism and the Boundaries of Economic Science. History of Political Economy 4 (2): 32543.Google Scholar
Young, Robert J. C. 1995. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race. London: Routledge.Google Scholar