32/03: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== KPI Description == | |||
{|class="wikitable" | |||
| Title | |||
| Interdisciplinary project 1953-1955: “Selected Memoranda on Economic Aspects of Institutional Growth” (not for publication), vol. 1 – Columbia University | |||
|- | |||
| Author | |||
| Polanyi, Karl | |||
|- | |||
| Description | |||
| File consists of a bound volume of typed memoranda, some of which are annotated, (Memo 20, 19, 16, 11 and 15), titled “Selected Memoranda on Economic Aspects of Institutional Growth” for the interdisciplinary project 1953-1955. Memorandum 20 (October 1955) was written by Karl Polanyi and is titled "The Two Meanings of Economic". 51p. (See files: [[31/16]], [[32/04]], [[36/06]]) | |||
|- | |||
| URI | |||
| [http://hdl.handle.net/10694/895 http://hdl.handle.net/10694/895] | |||
|- | |||
| Date | |||
| 2010-09-23 | |||
|} | |||
- | == Contents == | ||
=== Two Meanings of Economy - Karl Polanyi === | |||
{{Page |n°=6}} … a Marshall, Pareto and Durkheim equally adhered to it.. Menger alone in his posthumous work criticized the term but neither he nor Max Weber, nor Talcott Parsons {{Page |n°=7}} after him, apprehended the significance of the distinction for sociological analysis.<ref>Marshall, Pareto ou Durkheim également adhéraient à [la vision du concept d’économie où sens formel et substantif ne font qu’un]. Seul Menger, dans son travail posthume, critiqua le terme mais ni lui ni Max Weber, pas plus que Talcott Parsons après lui, n’appréhendèrent toute la signification de la distinction pour l’analyse sociologique. (Traduction [[User:Santiago Pinault|Santiago Pinault]] ([[User talk:Santiago Pinault|talk]])) Indeed, there seemed to be no valid reason for distinguished between two root meanings of a term which, as we said, were bound to coincide in practice. | |||
</ref> | |||
=== Anthropology as History - Conrad Arensberg === | |||
{{Page |n°=55}} | |||
=== Sociology and the Substantive View of the Economy - Terence Hopkins === | |||
{{Page |n°=79}} | |||
=== The Market in Theory and History - Walter Neale === | |||
{{Page |n°=136}} | |||
=== Surpluses and Economic Development: A Critique of the Surplus Theorem - Harry Pearson === | |||
{{Page |n°=163}} | |||
Latest revision as of 22:08, 11 June 2019
KPI Description
| Title | Interdisciplinary project 1953-1955: “Selected Memoranda on Economic Aspects of Institutional Growth” (not for publication), vol. 1 – Columbia University |
| Author | Polanyi, Karl |
| Description | File consists of a bound volume of typed memoranda, some of which are annotated, (Memo 20, 19, 16, 11 and 15), titled “Selected Memoranda on Economic Aspects of Institutional Growth” for the interdisciplinary project 1953-1955. Memorandum 20 (October 1955) was written by Karl Polanyi and is titled "The Two Meanings of Economic". 51p. (See files: 31/16, 32/04, 36/06) |
| URI | http://hdl.handle.net/10694/895 |
| Date | 2010-09-23 |
Contents
Two Meanings of Economy - Karl Polanyi
[6] … a Marshall, Pareto and Durkheim equally adhered to it.. Menger alone in his posthumous work criticized the term but neither he nor Max Weber, nor Talcott Parsons [7] after him, apprehended the significance of the distinction for sociological analysis.[1]
Anthropology as History - Conrad Arensberg
[55]
Sociology and the Substantive View of the Economy - Terence Hopkins
[79]
The Market in Theory and History - Walter Neale
[136]
Surpluses and Economic Development: A Critique of the Surplus Theorem - Harry Pearson
[163]
- ↑ Marshall, Pareto ou Durkheim également adhéraient à [la vision du concept d’économie où sens formel et substantif ne font qu’un]. Seul Menger, dans son travail posthume, critiqua le terme mais ni lui ni Max Weber, pas plus que Talcott Parsons après lui, n’appréhendèrent toute la signification de la distinction pour l’analyse sociologique. (Traduction Santiago Pinault (talk)) Indeed, there seemed to be no valid reason for distinguished between two root meanings of a term which, as we said, were bound to coincide in practice.