My first reflection will be methodological. I have devoted some time to reading the social philosopher Michel Foucault because some social scientist friends of mine insisted on his relevance for an understanding of social history. Foucault left me with a feeling that different aspects of an epoch are linked together and that a change of epochs has many causal dimensions that are best understood together. I felt that I was looking at patterns in history from a new perspective.

In a way, Kumara Velupillai's article reminds me of this reading of Foucault. Scientific discoveries have historic roots that linger on and develop, as well as appearing as urgent questions for a particular period. Roots from Petty and Malthus together with questions of “justice in taxation” form a picture “painted” by Velupillai. It takes a supreme intellect to propose these grand links and thereby present his reader with a broad understanding.

However, there exists a problem for me as a reader. As with Foucault, the closely argued proofs are missing. They are not part of the method. I only intuitively feel that Velupillai is right. One has to rely on the author's judgment. However, I do believe that Velupillai is far more accurate than wrong in his reconstruction of developments in economics.

I will now proceed to a more detailed remark that ends up, as I see it, at a “transcendent” level. Velupillai quotes Sir John Hicks saying that Lindahl was the founder of social accounting theory. The important concepts of ex ante-ex post used by the Stockholm School naturally provide an example of a link to accounting.