Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:35:44.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ROBBINS'S ESSAY AND THE AXIOMATIZATION OF ECONOMICS*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

ROGER E. BACKHOUSE  and
STEVEN G. MEDEMA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
A Symposium on The Nature and Significance of Economic Science by Lionel Robbins
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 485 - 499
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2009

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

Backhouse, R. E. 1998. “If Mathematics Is Informal, Perhaps We Should Accept that Economics Must Be Informal Too.” Economic Journal 108 (451): 1848–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, . 2003. “The Stabilization of Price Theory, 1920–1955.” In Samuels, W. J., Biddle, J. E., and Davis, J. B., eds., A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 208–24.Google Scholar
Backhouse, . 2009. “Robbins and Welfare Economics: A Reappraisal,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31 (December): 474–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. and Durlauf, S.. 2009. “Robbins on Economic Generalizations and Reality in the Light of Modern Econometrics.” Economica 76 (October): 873–90.Google Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. and Laidler, D.. 2004. “What Was Lost with IS-LM.” In De Vroey, M. and Hoover, K. D., eds., The IS-LM Model: Its Rise, Fall, and Strange Persistence. Annual Supplement to History of Political Economy 36. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 25–56.Google Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. and Medema, S. G.. 2009. “Defining Economics: The Long Road to Acceptance of the Robbins Definition.” Economica 76 (October): 805–20.Google Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. and Nishizawa, T., eds. 2010. No Wealth But Life: Welfare Economics and the Welfare State in Britain, 1880–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chamberlin, E. 1933. The Theory of Monopolistic Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Commons, J. R. 1931. “Institutional Economics.” American Economic Review 21 (December): 648–57.Google Scholar
Debreu, G. 1959. Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium. Cowles Foundation Monograph 17. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Debreu, . 2008. “Mathematical Economics.” In Blume, L. and Durlauf, S., eds., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, volume 5, pp. 454–60.Google Scholar
Dobb, M. 1933. “Economic Theory and the Problems of a Socialist Economy.” Economic Journal 43, 588–98.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1953. “The Methodology of Positive Economics.” In Friedman, M., Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Giocoli, N. 2003. Modeling Rational Agents. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrod, R. F. 1938. “Scope and Method of Economics.” Economic Journal 48 (September): 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1960. “Linear Theory.” Economic Journal 70 (December): 671–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, K. D. 2002. The Methodology of Empirical Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchison, T. W. 1938. The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1960.Google Scholar
Hutchison, . 2009. “A Formative Decade: Methodological Controversy in the 1930s.” Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (3): 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingrao, B. and Israel, G. 1990. The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science, translated by McGilvray, Ian. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, H. G. 1960. “The Political Economy of Opulence.” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 26 (4): 552–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapp, K. W. 1968. “In Defense of Institutional Economics.” Swedish Journal of Economics 70 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kinkaid, H. 1997. Individualism and the Unity of Science: Essays on Reduction, Explanation and the Special Sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Koopmans, T. C. 1957. Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, O. 1945. “The Scope and Method of Economics.” Review of Economic Studies 13 (1): 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, M. 1999. Dilemmas in Economic Theory: Persisting Foundational Problems of Microeconomics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, P. and Weintraub, E. R.. 1994. “The Pure and the Applied: Bourbakism Comes to Mathematical Economics.” Science in Context 7 (2): 245–272.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, O. 1936. “Logistics and the Social Sciences.” Reprinted in Schotter, Andrew, ed., Selected Economic Writings of Oskar Morgenstern. New York: New York University Press, 1976, pp. 389–404.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, . 1963. On the Accuracy of Economic Observations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, L. C. 1928. “The Representative Firm.” Economic Journal 38 (September): 387–404.Google Scholar
Robbins, . 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robbins, . 1935. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science, 2nd edition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robbins, . 1938. “Live and Dead Issues in the Methodology of Economics.” Economica n.s. 5 (August): 342–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. 1933a. Response appended to G. F. Shove, “The Imperfection of the Market.” Economic Journal 43 (March): 113–25.Google Scholar
Robinson, . 1933b. The Economics of Imperfect Competition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rothbard, M. N. 1957. “In Defense of ‘Extreme Apriorism’.” Southern Economic Journal 23 (3): 314–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutherford, M. 2007. “American Institutionalism and Its British Connections.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 14 (June): 291–323.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sraffa, P. 1926. “The Laws of Returns under Competitive Conditions.” Economic Journal 36 (December): 335–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tintner, G. 1953. “The Definition of Econometrics.” Econometrica 22 (January): 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Neumann, J. 1947. “The Mathematician.” In Heywood, R. B., ed., The Works of the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 180–96.Google Scholar
Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O.. 1944/1947. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 2nd edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. 1998. “Axiomatisches Missverständniss.” Economic Journal 108 (November): 1837–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, . 2002. How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, . 2008. “Mathematics and Economics.” In Blume, L. and Durlauf, S., eds., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, volume 5, pp. 462–5.Google Scholar