ヴェブレンとアメリカ制度学派 : ヴェブレンはアメリカ制度学派の創設者か(制度派経済学の研究,共同研究)

スポンサーリンク

概要

• 論文の詳細を見る

• I have defined institutional economics in the following manner. Institutional economics is "anti-classical economics" which accepts Darwin's theory of evolution and attaches the greatest importance to the study of institutional changes. Accordingly, I have divided institutional economics into two separate theories, namely; one which goes as far as to suggest changes beyond the established political system (Marxist economics), and the other which deals with changes within the established political system (German historical and American institutional economics). When I look at American institutional economists in terms of these two types, Veblen is developing economics corresponding to the former type of economics, whereas Commons and Mitchell are considered to belong to the latter type of economists. What is the reason for the difference in their theoretical views? In the light of the types of the institutional economics, it seems to me that the difference has been caused by the difference in the way in which they accepted Darwin's evolutionary changes. Assuming that Veblen had a view of institutional changes similar to that of the Hegelian dialectic (long-term, class-conscious and qualitative), those of Commons and Mitchell may be said to be characterized by their similarly to Dewey's pragmatic view of change (short- term, group-conscious and quantative). If this is the case, it is only natural that they should differ in opinion in these respects. If this is so, is it not inappropriate to discuss all of these persons collectively? Many economists discussing Veblen together with other American institutional economists consider him to be a social reformer. I do not disagree at all with the idea that Commons and Mitchell were social reformers, but is it appropriate to consider Vebren to be a social reformer, too? It is true that Veblen's institutional concepts, which is in a way considered as expanded institutional concepts cocerning Marx's concepts of capital and labor, shaded off the institutional contradictions involved in capitalism effectively breaking the ice for social reform. It must be noted, however, his institutional concepts were inseperably bound up with his own instictive notions. Therefore, the various contradictions in his work arose from his instincts as a man, and people say that they were not of a nature which could be solved easily. In other words, it may be said that Veblen should not truly be called a social reformer. From this point of view, therefore, it is inappropriate that he is spoken of collectively with other American institutional economists. It is my opinion, therefore, that the name of Veblen should at least be omitted from the list of American institutional economists until his true past and character can be studied.

• 日本大学の論文
• 1982-03-20

著者

• 佐々野 謙治

  第一経済大学

関連論文

• ヴェブレンとアメリカ制度学派 : ヴェブレンはアメリカ制度学派の創設者か(制度派経済学の研究,共同研究)
• ヴェブレンとアメリカ制度学派--ヴェブレンはアメリカ制度学派の創設者か (制度派経済学の研究)

スポンサーリンク