Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T09:10:56.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

T. E. Cliffe Leslie and the English Methodenstreit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Gregory C. G. Moore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is part of a wider historical research program in which I seek to examine the origins of past methodological debates. It is my opinion that economists ignore methodological and philosophical issues until either the doctrinal conclusions of the school to which they belong are challenged or they themselves contest the doctrinal conclusions of an alternative school. Once this occurs, economists select, reinterpret or construct methodological precepts in order to gain the maximum support for their position. Under this hypothesis the formation and articulation of methodological beliefs are largely endogenous to matters relating to economics; that is, the traditional causal process of methodology to theory to policy is turned on its head and becomes policy to theory to methodology. The aim of what follows is to illustrate this research program by examining the methodological framework expounded by T. E. Cliffe Leslie in the early stages of the English economic Methodenstreit or “battle of methods.”

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , Spring 1995 , pp. 57 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Adelman, P. 1971. “Frederic Harrison and the ‘Positivist’ Attack on Orthodox Political Economy,” History of Political Economy, 3, 170–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. 1963. Towards an Historiography of Science; reprint, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, 1967.Google Scholar
Black, R. D. C. 1972–1981. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, 7 vols., Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, J. W. 1966. Evolution and Society, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.Google Scholar
Coats, A. W. 1954. “The Historicist Reaction to English Political Economy,” Economica, n.s., 21, 143–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. L. 1857. Preface to Spedding, J., Heath, D. D. and Ellis, R. L., eds., The Works of Francis Bacon, 14 , Longman and Co., London.Google Scholar
Feaver, G. 1969. From Status to Contract, Longmans, London.Google Scholar
Gras, N. S. B. 1930. “Stages of Economic History,” Journal of Economics and Business History, 2, 395–418.Google Scholar
Grossman, H. 1943. “The Evolutionist Revolt Against Classical Economics, Parts I and II,” Journal of Political Economy, 51, 381–96, 502–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollander, S. 1985. The Economics of John Stuart Mill, 2 vols., Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hoselitz, B. F. 1965. “Theories of Stages of Economic Growth,” in Hoselitz, B. F., ed., Theories of Economic Growth, Free Press, New York, 193–238.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1879. The Theory of Political Economy; 5th ed., Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1965.Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S. 1877. The Principles of Science, Dover Edition, New York, 1958.Google Scholar
Koot, G. M. 1975. “T. E. Cliffe Leslie, Irish Social Reform, and the Origins of the English Historical School of Economics,” History of Political Economy, 7, 312–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koot, G. M. 1980. “English Historical Economics and the Emergence of Economic History in England,” History of Political Economy, 12, 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koot, G. M. 1987. English Historical Economics, 1870–1926, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1971. History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8, Reidel, Holland.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1862. “The Love of Money,” in Leslie 1888, 1–8.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1863. “The Wealth of Nations and Slave Power,” in Leslie 1888, 9–20.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1866. “Political Economy and Tenure of Land,” in Leslie 1870b, 117–32.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1867. “Peasantry and Farms of Belgium, 1867,” in Leslie 1870b, 294–340.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1868a. “Political Economy and Emigration,” in Leslie 1870b, 84–116.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1868b. “Political Economy and the Rate of Wages,” in Leslie 1870b, 357–79.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1870a. “The Political Economy of Adam Smith,” in Leslie 1888, 21–40.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1870b. Land Systems and Industrial Economy of Ireland, England, & Continental Countries; reprint, Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1875. “Maine's Early History of Institutions,” Fortnightly Review, March.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1876. “On the Philosophical Method of Political Economy,” in Leslie 1888, 163–90.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1879. Untitled review of the second edition of Jevons's, W. S.Theory of Political Economy, in Black 1972–1981, 8, 157–62.Google Scholar
Leslie, T. E. C. 1888. Essays in Political Economy; reprint, Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1969.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1883. Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics, edited by Scheider, L., translated by Nock, F. C., New York University Press, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
Novack, G. 1968. Empiricism and its Evolution: A Marxist View, Pathfinder, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
Pérez-Ramos, A. 1988. Francis Bacon's Idea of Science and the Maker's Knowledge Tradition, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies, 2 vols., Routledge, London, 1974.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1957. The Poverty of Historicism, Ark, London, 1986.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1960. “On Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance,” in Conjectures and Refutations; reprint, Routledge, London, 1989, 3–30.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis; reprint, Allen and Unwin, London, 1986.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 1896. Lectures on Justice, Police, Revenue and Arms, edited by Cannan, E., Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Smellie, K. B. 1928. “Sir Henry Maine,” Economica, 8, 64–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unattributed. 1883. “Political and Economical Heterodoxy: Cliffe Leslie,” Westminster Review, n.s., 64, 470–500.Google Scholar
Urbach, P. 1987. Francis Bacon's Philosophy of Science, Open Court, La Salle, Illinois.Google Scholar
Vickers, B. 1992. “Francis Bacon and the Progress of Knowledge,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 13, 495–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeo, R. 1985. “An Idol of the Market-Place: Baconianism in Nineteenth Century Britain,” History of Science, 23, 251–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed