HES Presidential addresses often attempt to answer a substantive question (or number of related questions) in the history of economic thought. The answers provided are not “answers” in the sense that one finds an answer to a simple numerical problem; rather they are historical narratives, stories, that bring the listener/reader to a new, and hopefully deeper, understanding of a particular author, piece of economic literature, or episode in the history of economic thought.

Thus spake Edwin Cannan, professor of economics at the London School of Economics (LSE) and member of the Council of the Royal Economic Society, publisher of The Economic Journal (EJ). From 1911 to 1945, Keynes was editor of the EJ, arguably the most prestigious journal in British economics. At the time of Cannan's remark in February 1934, when the early drafts of The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money were taking shape and Keynes had assumed leadership of a movement to reconceptualize economic theory, he not only had ideas of his own but an uncommonly robust sense of their importance. Although Keynes's conception of the ultimate purpose of economic theory remained true to the Marshallian tradition in which he was trained— forging scientific tools to improve the lot of humankind—his immediate objective was less pacific: the destruction of classical economics (Keynes 1935, p. 36). In his metaphor, classicism was a citadel fortified by an invincible superstructure constructed over generations by economists of great theoretical power and ingenuity, from David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill to Alfred Marshall and his own contemporary, Arthur Cecil Pigou. Because the citadel was vulnerable only in its “fundamental groundwork,” an assault would succeed only by undermining this foundation (Keynes 1973a, p. 533).

In recent years, water utilities have received increasing attention. Issues of ownership and market structure have been the focus of academic research, policy debates and grassroots activism. These recent concerns echo the contentious debate that raged over water supply in nineteenth century London from 1810 to 1902. Nassau W. Senior and John Stuart Mill were major players in the debates, as both theorists and policy makers.

Frequent reference is made to the Alonso-Muth model of the urban land and housing markets, and the creation of this model often is considered to be the founding act in the field of urban economics. One purpose of this paper is to examine closely the original writings of these two distinguished authors, William Alonso and Richard Muth, and to show that their contributions to the development of the model were not identical. Both authors focused on the idea that there is a trade-off between access to a central point (for employment) and the price of residential land or housing, but their models were designed to serve somewhat different purposes. A second objective of this paper is to evaluate the proposition that theirs was indeed the founding act in the field by concentrating on the earliest versions of their work on the model, rather than on the enormous literature that followed. See Masahisa Fujita (1989) for a comprehensive treatment of the subsequent theoretical literature that was stimulated by Alonso and Muth.

James Maitland, Lord Lauderdale published his An Inquiry into the Nature and Origin of Public Wealth and into the Means and Causes of its Increase (1804) only twentyeight years after the publication of the “Inquiry”: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith. A comparison of the titles strongly suggests some relationship, and indeed even glancing through the first few pages of Lauderdale's book confirms this conjecture. The book takes off as a critique of Smith's, and by-and-large remains so till the end. Many of the elements of his criticism can be seen in the difference in the wording of the titles of the two books. Except for “Nations” all the significant words in Smith's title are included in Lauderdale's, but he adds three more: “Origin,” “Means” and “Public” (which is not a substitute for the omitted “Nation”). As we shall see, in his view, ignoring these led to major deficiencies in Smith's work, and Lauderdale set out to point them out, and if possible, to correct them.

Nicholas Barbon (1640–1698) is little appreciated by most historians of economic thought. He is sporadically mentioned in a few writings—probably the most well-known being the favorable reference to him made by John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (Keynes 1936, p. 359). The fullest treatment of Barbon's economic ideas is contained in The Origin of Scientific Economics: English Economic Thought 1660–1776 by William Louis Letwin (Letwin 1963, pp. 48–75). Letwin considers a major defect of Barbon's first purely scientific inquiry into economics, A Discourse of Trade (Barbon 1690), and by implication, his other economic writings, to be “the logical incoherence of its parts” (Letwin 1963, p. 57). This criticism is not surprising in light of the pre-paradigm period in which Barbon was writing.