Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T02:40:43.240Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE CHANGING PLACE OF VISUAL REPRESENTATION IN ECONOMICS: PAUL SAMUELSON BETWEEN PRINCIPLE AND STRATEGY, 1941–1955

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2010

YANN B. GIRAUD
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we show that Paul Samuelson (1915–2009), renowned as one of the main advocates of the mathematization of economics, has also contributed to the change of the place of visual representation in the discipline. In his early works (e.g. Foundations of Economic Analysis published in 1947), he rejected diagrammatic analysis as a relevant tool of theorizing but used diagrams extensively, both as a pedagogic tool in his introductory textbook Economics (1948) and as a way of clarifying his theory of public expenditure (1954-5). We show that Samuelson’s reluctance to use diagrams in his early works can be explained by his training at Chicago and Harvard and his rejecting Marshall’s economics, whereas his adoption of visual language in Economics was a product of the peculiar context affecting American mass-education after WWII. A methodological debate which opposed him to Kenneth Boulding in 1948 led him to reconsider the place of visual representation in order to clarify conceptual controversies during subsequent debates on mathematical economics. Therefore, it can be said that the prominent place of visual language in the diffusion of economic ideas was stabilized in the mid-1950s, as mathematical language became the prevailing tool of economic theorizing. From this, we conclude that the idea that algebra simply upstaged geometry in the making of economic analysis must be qualified.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 175 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, Roy G. D. 1949. “The Mathematical Foundations of Economic Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 63 (1): 111–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1998. “The Transformation of U.S. Economics, 1920–1960, Viewed through a Survey of Journal Articles.” In Morgan, Mary S. and Rutherford, Malcolm, eds., From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Annual Supplement to Volume 30 of History of Political Economy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 85–107.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 2008. “Economics in the United States (1945 to present).” In Durlauf, Steven N.and Blume, Lawrence E., eds., New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition, Volume 8. New York, NY: Macmillan, pp. 522–31.Google Scholar
Baughman, James L. 2006. The Republic of Mass Culture: Journalism, Filmmaking and Broadcasting in America Since 1941. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Baumol, William. 1949. “Relaying the Foundations.” Economica 16 (62): 159–68.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1984. Great Economists since Keynes: An Introduction to the Lives and Works of One Hundred Modern Economists. Brighton, UK: Harvester.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1941. Economic Analysis. New York, NY: Harper.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1948. “Samuelson’s Foundations: The role of mathematics in economics.” Journal of Political Economy 56 (3): 187–99.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1988. “What Do We Want in an Economics Textbook?” Journal of Economic Education 19 (2): 113–32.Google Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1989. “A Bibliographical Autobiography.” Banca Nazionale del Lavoro Quaterly Review 172: 365–93.Google Scholar
Brown, E. Cary and Solow, Robert M., eds. 1983. Paul Samuelson and Modern Economic Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Burlingame, Roger. 1959. Endless Frontier: The Story of McGraw-Hill. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Carter, C. F. 1950. “Review of Foundations of Economic Analysis.” Economic Journal 60 (238): 351–5.Google Scholar
Charles, Loïc. 2003. “The Visual History of the Tableau Économique.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 10 (4): 527–50.Google Scholar
Charles, Loïc. 2004. “The Tableau Économique as Rational Recreation.” History of Political Economy 36 (3): 445–74.Google Scholar
Cohn, Elchanan, Cohn, Sharon, Balch, Donald C., and Bradley, James Jr. 2004. “The Relation between Student Attitude toward Graphs and Performance in Economics.” The American Economist 48 (2): 41–52.Google Scholar
Colander, David C. and Landreth, Harry, eds. 1996. The Coming of Keynesianism to America: Conversations with the founders of Keynesian economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Cook, Simon. 2005. “Late Victorian Visual Reasoning and Alfred Marshall’s Economic Science.” British Journal for the History of Science 38 (2): 179–95.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter. 1992. “The Image of Objectivity.” Representations 40 (Special Issue: Seeing Science): 81–128.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Neil B. 2003. “Visualizing the Gains from Trade, mid-1870’s to 1962.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 10 (4), pp. 551–72.Google Scholar
Derobert, Laurent and Theriot, Guillaume. 2003. “The Lorenz Curve as an Archetype: A Historico-Epistemological Study.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 10 (4): 573–85.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, Francis Y. 1894. “Theory of International Values.” Economic Journal 4 (15): 424–43.Google Scholar
Ely, Richard T., ed. 1923. Outlines of Economics. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Elzinga, Kenneth G. 1992. “The Eleven Principles of Economics.” Southern Economic Journal 58 (4): 861–79.Google Scholar
Emmer, Michele, ed. 2005. The Visual Mind II. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enke, Stephen. 1955. “More on the Misuse of Mathematics in Economics: A Rejoinder.” Review of Economics and Statistics 37 (2): 131–3.Google Scholar
Finnegan, Cara A. 2003. Picturing Poverty: Print Culture and FSA Photographs. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1892. Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Price. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1925.Google Scholar
Garver, Frederic and Hansen, Alvin. 1928. Principles of Economics. Boston, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1952. “A Diagrammatic Analysis of Complementarity.” Southern Economic Journal 19 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1988. “An Emigrant from a Developing Country: Autobiographical Note- I.” Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Quarterly Review 164: 3–31.Google Scholar
Hands, D. Wade and Mirowski, Philip. 1998. “A Paradox of Budgets: The Postwar Stabilization of American Neoclassical Demand Theory.” In Morgan, Mary S. and Rutherford, Malcolm, eds., From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Annual Supplement to Volume 30 of History of Political Economy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 260–92.Google Scholar
Hankins, Thomas L. 1999. “Blood, Dirt, and Nomograms: A Particular History of Graphs.” Isis 90 (1), pp. 50–80.Google Scholar
Hankins, Thomas L. 2006. “A ‘Large and Graceful Sinuosity’: John Herschel’s Graphical Method.” Isis 97 (4): 605–33.Google Scholar
Hansen, Alvin H. 1953. A Guide to Keynes. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1939. Value and Capital. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Keynes, John Maynard. 1924. “Alfred Marshall, 1842–1924.” Economic Journal 34 (135): 310–72.Google Scholar
Klein, Judy L. 1995. “The Method of Diagrams and the Black Arts of Inductive Economics.” In Ingrid, Rima, ed., Measurement, Quantification and Economic Analysis. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 98–137.Google Scholar
Kugler, Kenny and Andrews, Kim. 1996. “Graphical Analysis and the Visually Impaired in Undergraduate Economics Courses.” Journal of Economic Education 27 (3): 224–8.Google Scholar
Larkin, Jill H. and Simon, Herbert A. 1987. “Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words.” Cognitive Science 11 (1): 65–99.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1988. “Drawing Things Together.” In Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve, eds., Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 19–68.Google Scholar
Leonard, Robert J. 1999. “Seeing is Believing: Otto Neurath, Graphic Art and the Social Order.” In De Marchi, Neil and Goodwin, Craufurd, eds., Economic Engagements with Art. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 452–478.Google Scholar
Lerner, Abba P. 1932. “The diagrammatical Representation of Cost Conditions in International Trade.” Economica 37: 346–56.Google Scholar
Lerner, Abba P. The Economics of Control. New York, NY: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Lightman, Bernard. 2000. “The Visual Theology of Victorian Popularizers of Science: From Reverent Eye to Chemical Retina.” Isis 91 (4): 351–80.Google Scholar
Maas, Harro and Morgan, Mary S. 2002. “Timing History: The Introduction of Graphical Analysis in the 19th Century British Economics.” Revue d’Histoire des Sciences Humaines 7 (October): 97–127.Google Scholar
Margolis, Julius. 1955. “A Comment on the Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” Review of Economics and Statistics 37 (4), pp. 347–9.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1896. Economics of Industry. London, UK: Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1879. Pure Theory (Foreign Trade—Domestic Values). No. 1 in Series of Reprints of Scarce Tracts in Economic and Political Science. London: London School of Economics, 1930.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Deirdre N. 2002. “Other Things Equal: Samuelsonian Economics.” Eastern Economic Journal 28 (3): 425–30.Google Scholar
Metzler, Lloyd. 1948. “Review of Foundations of Economic Analysis.” American Economic Review 38 (5): 905–10.Google Scholar
Mills, Frederick C. et al. . 1928. “The Present Status and Future Prospects of Quantitative Economics (in Round Table Discussions).” The American Economic Review 18 (1): 28–45.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 2002. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Novick, David. 1954. “Mathematics: Logic, Quantity and Method.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 357–9.Google Scholar
Patinkin, Don. 1973. “In Search of the ‘Wheel of Wealth’: On the Origins of Frank Knight’s Circular-Flow Diagram.” American Economic Review 63 (5): 1037–46.Google Scholar
Persons, Charles E. 1916. “Teaching the Introductory Course in Economics.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 31 (1): 86–107.Google Scholar
Pickhardt, Michael. 2006. “Fifty Years after Samuelson’s ‘The Theory of Public Expenditure’: What Are We Left With?” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 28 (4): 439–60.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1938. “A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer’s Behaviour.” Economica 5 (17): 61–71.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1939. “A Synthesis of the Principle of Acceleration and the Multiplier.” The Journal of Political Economy 47 (6): 786–97.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1942. “The Stability of Equilibrium: Linear and Nonlinear Systems.” Econometrica 10(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1948. Economics: An Introductory Analysis, 1st edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1950. “The Problem of Integrability in Utility Theory.” Economica 17 (68): 355–85.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1952. “Economic Theory and Mathematics—An Appraisal.” American Economic Review 42 (2): 56–66.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1954. “The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 387–9.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1955. “Diagrammatic Exposition of a Theory of Public Expenditure.” Review of Economics and Statistics 37 (4): 350–6.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1959. “Alvin Hansen and the Interaction between the Multiplier Analysis and the Principle of Acceleration.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 41 (2): 183–4.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1964a. “A. P. Lerner at Sixty.” Review of Economic Studies 31 (3): 169–78.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1964b. Economics: An Introductory Analysis. 6th edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1972. “Jacob Viner, 1892–1970.” Journal of Political Economy 80 (1): 5–11.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1997. “Credo of a Lucky Textbook Author.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (2): 153–60.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. 1998. “How Foundations Came to Be.” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (3): 1375–86.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Paul A. et al. . 1954. “Mathematics and Economics: Discussion of Mr. Novick’s article.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36 (4): 359–86.Google Scholar
Skousen, Mark. 1997. “The Perseverance of Paul Samuelson’s Economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (2): 137–52.Google Scholar
Solow, Robert M. 1997. “How Did Economics Get That Way and What Way Did It Get?” Daedalus 126 (1): 39–58.Google Scholar
Stigler, George J. 1948. “Review of Foundations of Economic Analysis.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 43 (244): 603–5.Google Scholar
Taussig, Frank. 1911. Principles of Economics. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Taylor, Horace. 1950. “The Teaching of Undergraduate Economics.” American Economic Review 40 (5, part 2): 1–226.Google Scholar
Viner, Jacob. 1937. Studies in the Theory of International Trade. New York, NY: Harper and Brothers Publishers.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 2002. How Economics Became a Mathematical Science. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Allen J. 1992. “Facilitating the Transition from Graphical to Algebraic Models: A Teaching Challenge for Intermediate Microeconomics.” Journal of Economic Education 23 (4): 317–31.Google Scholar
Wise, M. Norton. 2006. “Making Visible.” Isis 97 (1): 75–82.Google Scholar
Yonay, Yuval P. 1998. The Struggle Over the Soul of Economics: Institutionalist and Neoclassical Economists in America between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar