Carl Menger’s two Meanings of ‘Economic’ - Revision history

Santiago Pinault: /* The Posthumous Carl Menger */

2020-05-30T01:03:30Z

The Posthumous Carl Menger

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:03, 30 May 2020
Line 20:		Line 20:

	== The Posthumous Carl Menger ==		== The Posthumous Carl Menger ==
	Neo-classical economics was established on Carl Menger's premise that its appropriate concern was the allocation of insufficient means to provide for man's livelihood. This was the first [18] statement of the postulate of scarcity, or maximization. As a succinct formulation of the logic of rational action with reference to the economy, it ranks high among the achievements of the human mind.		Neo-classical economics was established on Carl Menger's premise that its appropriate concern was the allocation of insufficient means to provide for man's livelihood. This was the first {{Page \|n°=18}} statement of the postulate of scarcity, or maximization. As a succinct formulation of the logic of rational action with reference to the economy, it ranks high among the achievements of the human mind.

	Its importance was enhanced by a superb relevance to the actual operation of market institutions which, due to their maximizing effects in day-to-day operations, were by their very nature amenable to such an approach.		Its importance was enhanced by a superb relevance to the actual operation of market institutions which, due to their maximizing effects in day-to-day operations, were by their very nature amenable to such an approach.

	As Menger explained, however, in a posthumous edition of his work, published in 1923, the economy has two "basic directions," only one of which was the economizing direction stemming from the insufficiency of means, while the other was the "techno-economic"<ref>Modern readers might mistake Menger's "technical" or "techno-economic"for"technological." The latter, as Menger was the first to recognize, was in its purpose altogether different from the economy. The economy is limited to providing for the means of want satisfaction, whether by economizing or by production. Technology as such is a sphere of activity not necessarily aimed at any purpose of this kind, but may include scientific or military purposes or be enjoyed for its own sake, according to Menger.</ref> direction as he called it, deriving from the requirements of production regardless of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the means. For rationally, production is called for if consumable goods are absent, while the factors are available.		As Menger explained, however, in a posthumous edition of his work, published in 1923, the economy has two "basic directions," only one of which was the economizing direction stemming from the insufficiency of means, while the other was the "techno-economic"<ref>Modern readers might mistake Menger's "technical" or "techno-economic" for "technological." The latter, as Menger was the first to recognize, was in its purpose altogether different from the economy. The economy is limited to providing for the means of want satisfaction, whether by economizing or by production. Technology as such is a sphere of activity not necessarily aimed at any purpose of this kind, but may include scientific or military purposes or be enjoyed for its own sake, according to Menger.</ref> direction as he called it, deriving from the requirements of production regardless of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the means. For rationally, production is called for if consumable goods are absent, while the factors are available.

	In a section of Chapter IV entitled “The Two Basic Directions of the Human Economy,” Menger wrote:		In a section of Chapter IV entitled “The Two Basic Directions of the Human Economy,” Menger wrote:
Line 35:		Line 35:
	Later, Menger wished to supplement his "Principles" of 1871, so as not to appear to ignore the primitive, archaic, and other early societies which were being studied by the new social sciences. Cultural anthropology revealed a variety of non-gainful motivations which induced man to take part in production; sociology refuted the myth of an all-pervading utilitarian bias; ancient history showed cases of high cultures having no market system.<ref>Menger himself seems to have held that economizing attitudes involve utilitarian value scales in a sense which we should regard today as an undue limitation of the logic of the ends-means relationship. This may have been one of the reasons why he hesitated to embark on any theory other than that of "advanced" countries where such value scales could be assumed.</ref> Menger was now anxious to limit the strict application of his "Principles" to the modem exchange economy (''Verkehrswirtschaft''). The posthumous edition abounds in references to the exchange or market economy for which the "Principles" were designed, on the one hand, and the non-market or backward economies, on the other.<ref>Menger uses several words to designate these "backward" economies: ''zuruckgeblieben'', ''unzivilisiert'', ''unentwickelt''.</ref>		Later, Menger wished to supplement his "Principles" of 1871, so as not to appear to ignore the primitive, archaic, and other early societies which were being studied by the new social sciences. Cultural anthropology revealed a variety of non-gainful motivations which induced man to take part in production; sociology refuted the myth of an all-pervading utilitarian bias; ancient history showed cases of high cultures having no market system.<ref>Menger himself seems to have held that economizing attitudes involve utilitarian value scales in a sense which we should regard today as an undue limitation of the logic of the ends-means relationship. This may have been one of the reasons why he hesitated to embark on any theory other than that of "advanced" countries where such value scales could be assumed.</ref> Menger was now anxious to limit the strict application of his "Principles" to the modem exchange economy (''Verkehrswirtschaft''). The posthumous edition abounds in references to the exchange or market economy for which the "Principles" were designed, on the one hand, and the non-market or backward economies, on the other.<ref>Menger uses several words to designate these "backward" economies: ''zuruckgeblieben'', ''unzivilisiert'', ''unentwickelt''.</ref>

	Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger's discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins' (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." Some seventeen years later, when the "Principles," with F. H. Knight's preface, were translated into English (1950), the first edition—half the size of the second—was once more selected. Moreover, the translation rendered ~~thoughout~~ the book the term "''wirtschaftend''" (literally: engaged in economic activity) by {{Page \|n°=19}} "economizing." Yet, according to Menger, this was the equivalent not of "wirtschaftend," but of "sparend", which he had expressly introduced in the posthumous edition in order to distinguish the allocation of the insufficient means from another direction of the economy which does not necessarily imply insufficiency.		Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger's discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins' (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." Some seventeen years later, when the "Principles," with F. H. Knight's preface, were translated into English (1950), the first edition—half the size of the second—was once more selected. Moreover, the translation rendered throughout the book the term "''wirtschaftend''" (literally: engaged in economic activity) by {{Page \|n°=19}} "economizing." Yet, according to Menger, this was the equivalent not of "wirtschaftend," but of "sparend", which he had expressly introduced in the posthumous edition in order to distinguish the allocation of the insufficient means from another direction of the economy which does not necessarily imply insufficiency.

	Menger himself was content to universalize the concept of economic activity by stressing its two directions, and made no attempt to develop a particular set of terms for "backward" economies which he was the first to distinguish categorically from "advanced" ones; nor was this tried later by other social scientists. For the purposes of such a task, involving as it does a comparison of market and pre-industrial non-market economies, a broader approach to the economy may be needed. Such a concept of the economy may indeed be found to lie nearer to the classical than to the neo-classical school of economic thought.		Menger himself was content to universalize the concept of economic activity by stressing its two directions, and made no attempt to develop a particular set of terms for "backward" economies which he was the first to distinguish categorically from "advanced" ones; nor was this tried later by other social scientists. For the purposes of such a task, involving as it does a comparison of market and pre-industrial non-market economies, a broader approach to the economy may be needed. Such a concept of the economy may indeed be found to lie nearer to the classical than to the neo-classical school of economic thought.

Santiago Pinault at 13:51, 24 June 2019

2019-06-24T13:51:07Z

Show changes

Santiago Pinault at 09:17, 21 June 2019

2019-06-21T09:17:24Z

Show changes

Santiago Pinault at 08:45, 21 June 2019

2019-06-21T08:45:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:45, 21 June 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{English to type}}		{{English to type}}

			{{Page \|n°=16}}<ref>Original posthumous 1971 edition's pagination, in 42/09, 59-67.</ref> THE ECONOMICS of underdevelopment is giving … […]

			{{Page \|n°=17}}
			== The Posthumous Carl Menger ==
			{{Page \|n°=18}}

			== Basic Patterns of integration ==
			{{Page \|n°=19}} {{Page \|n°=20}} {{Page \|n°=21}} {{Page \|n°=22}} {{Page \|n°=23}}

			== Appendix ==
			{{Page \|n°=24}}

			== Notes ==

	Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger’s discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins’ (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." [§17]		Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger’s discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins’ (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." [§17]

Santiago Pinault: /* Text Informations */

2019-06-21T08:31:03Z

Text Informations

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:31, 21 June 2019
Line 22:		Line 22:
	'''Date''': Draft written probably between [[1958]] and [[1960]]<br />		'''Date''': Draft written probably between [[1958]] and [[1960]]<br />
	'''KPA''': [[42/09]]<br />		'''KPA''': [[42/09]]<br />
	'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24		'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24<br />
	'''Other Languages''':		'''Other Languages''':
	{\|class="wikitable"		{\|class="wikitable"

Santiago Pinault at 08:30, 21 June 2019

2019-06-21T08:30:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:30, 21 June 2019
Line 23:		Line 23:
	'''KPA''': [[42/09]]<br />		'''KPA''': [[42/09]]<br />
	'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24		'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24
			'''Other Languages''':
			{\|class="wikitable"
			! Lge
			! Name
			\|-
			\| DE
			\|
			\|-
			\| FR
			\| « [[Les deux sens du mot 'économie' chez Carl Menger]] »
			\|}

Santiago Pinault at 19:37, 14 February 2019

2019-02-14T19:37:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:37, 14 February 2019
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger’s discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins’ (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." [§17]		Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger’s discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins’ (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." [§17]

			[…]

	When Neo-classical economics was born in 1871, it was developed along the lines of Menger (''Grundsätze'', 2<sup>nd</sup> ed. 1923; 1<sup>st</sup> ed. 1871). It started from human wants and needs which can be satisfied from scarce resources. [§35]		When Neo-classical economics was born in 1871, it was developed along the lines of Menger (''Grundsätze'', 2<sup>nd</sup> ed. 1923; 1<sup>st</sup> ed. 1871). It started from human wants and needs which can be satisfied from scarce resources. [§35]

			[…]

	When Hayek became the (intellectual) leader of the London School of Economics, L. S. E. published not the second, but the first edition of Menger’s work. Hayek wrote an introduction in which he said that some papers of Menger had been left, more or less in confusion (either he did not, thus, know of the existence of the second edition, or else he was claiming that Menger got soft in the head, or else that the son did not know what he was doing in publishing the second edition).		When Hayek became the (intellectual) leader of the London School of Economics, L. S. E. published not the second, but the first edition of Menger’s work. Hayek wrote an introduction in which he said that some papers of Menger had been left, more or less in confusion (either he did not, thus, know of the existence of the second edition, or else he was claiming that Menger got soft in the head, or else that the son did not know what he was doing in publishing the second edition).
Line 9:		Line 13:
	But let me quote the translators themselves on their reasons for ignoring the text of the second edition.<br />		But let me quote the translators themselves on their reasons for ignoring the text of the second edition.<br />
	"The translation presented here", they write in their Preface, "is a complete rendering of the edition of the Grundsätze which was published in Vienna in 1871. A second German edition was published in Vienna [in 1923], two years after Menger's death. We rejected the possibility of a variorum translation because it was the first edition only that influenced the development of economic doctrine, because of the posthumous character of the second edition, and because the numerous differences between the two editions make a variorum translation impractical." [§41-44]		"The translation presented here", they write in their Preface, "is a complete rendering of the edition of the Grundsätze which was published in Vienna in 1871. A second German edition was published in Vienna [in 1923], two years after Menger's death. We rejected the possibility of a variorum translation because it was the first edition only that influenced the development of economic doctrine, because of the posthumous character of the second edition, and because the numerous differences between the two editions make a variorum translation impractical." [§41-44]

			[…]

	Too much, I feel was here left unsaid. Few men, if any in the long history of human intellectual effort paralleled and none surpassed Menger in his dedication to the unremitting search for the truth, at the risk of self-obliteration. He had refused to permit either a reprint or a translation of the text of the first edition, which he deemed in need of completion; he resigned his chair at the University of Vienna in order to devote himself exclusively to that task; after an effort of fifty years during which he seems to have again and again reverted to the task, he left a manuscript behind him, which included four fully completed new chapters. At least one of these is of prime theoretical importance for the problems of definition and method that presently exercise the minds of contemporary scholars in this field. [§45]		Too much, I feel was here left unsaid. Few men, if any in the long history of human intellectual effort paralleled and none surpassed Menger in his dedication to the unremitting search for the truth, at the risk of self-obliteration. He had refused to permit either a reprint or a translation of the text of the first edition, which he deemed in need of completion; he resigned his chair at the University of Vienna in order to devote himself exclusively to that task; after an effort of fifty years during which he seems to have again and again reverted to the task, he left a manuscript behind him, which included four fully completed new chapters. At least one of these is of prime theoretical importance for the problems of definition and method that presently exercise the minds of contemporary scholars in this field. [§45]
Line 14:		Line 20:
	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==
	'''Reference''':<br />		'''Reference''':<br />
	'''Date''': Draft written probably between 1958 and 1960<br />		'''Date''': Draft written probably between [[1958]] and [[1960]]<br />
	'''KPA''': [[42/09]]<br />		'''KPA''': [[42/09]]<br />
	'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24		'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24

Santiago Pinault: /* Text Informations */

2017-12-22T03:17:19Z

Text Informations

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:17, 22 December 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:

	== Text Informations ==		== Text Informations ==
	Draft written probably between 1958 and 1960<br />		'''Reference''':<br />
	'''KPA''': 42/09<br />		'''Date''': Draft written probably between 1958 and 1960<br />
			'''KPA''': [[42/09]]<br />
	'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24		'''Original Posthumous Publication''': in DALTON George (dir.), [1971] ''Studies in Economic Anthropology'', Washington, American Anthropological Association, p. 16-24

Santiago Pinault: Santiago Pinault moved page Carl Menger’s two meanings of ‘economic’ to Carl Menger’s two Meanings of ‘Economic’

2017-07-08T11:32:41Z

Santiago Pinault moved page Carl Menger’s two meanings of ‘economic’ to Carl Menger’s two Meanings of ‘Economic’

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:32, 8 July 2017
(No difference)

Santiago Pinault at 09:26, 4 July 2017

2017-07-04T09:26:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 4 July 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{English to type}}

	Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger’s discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins’ (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." [§17]		Only quite recently has attention turned again towards the economy of the underdeveloped and backward countries. Menger’s discussion of economic development has, however, been forgotten. The posthumous edition, where the distinction between the two directions of the economy is made, was never translated into English. No presentation of neo-classical economics—including Lionel Robbins’ (1935)—deals with the "two directions." The London School of Economics edition of the "Principles" in its rare book series (1933) chose the first edition. Hayek, in a preface to this "replica" edition helped to remove the posthumous Menger from the consciousness of economists by passing over the manuscript [of the second edition] as "fragmentary and disordered." "For the present, at any rate," Professor Hayek concluded, "the results of the work of Menger's later years must be regarded as lost." [§17]