Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-fr72s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-13T00:17:05.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DISCIPLINING BOUNDARIES: LIONEL ROBBINS, MAX WEBER, AND THE BORDERLANDS OF ECONOMICS, HISTORY, AND PSYCHOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

HARRO MAAS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
A Symposium on The Nature and Significance of Economic Science by Lionel Robbins
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 500 - 517
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Arrow, Kenneth J. 1974. The Limits of Organization. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Barratt, A. 1869. Physical Ethics, or, the Science of Action. Bristol: Thoemmes, 1991.Google Scholar
Bennett, M. R. and Hacker, P. M. S.. 2002. “The Motor System in Neuroscience: A History and Analysis of Conceptual Developments.” Progress in Neurobiology 67 (1): 1–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brain, Robert M. 2001. “The Ontology of the Questionnaire—Max Weber on Measurement and Mass Investigation.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 32: 647–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brain, Robert M. and Norton Wise, M.. 1999. “Muscles and Engines: Indicator Diagrams and Helmholtz's Graphical Methods.” In Biagioli, M., ed., The Science Studies Reader. New York and London: Routledge, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar
Brentano, Lujo. 1908. Die Entwickelung der Wertlehre. München: Verlag der Köninglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Bruni, Luigi and Sugden, Robert. 2007. “The Road Not Taken: How Psychology Was Removed from Economics, and How It Might Be Brought Back.” The Economic Journal 117: 146–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaigneau, Nicolas. 1997. Contrat et Utilité. Origines et Fondements de la Théorie de l’Échange de Francis Ysidro Edgeworth. Paris, Université de Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne. PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, Kurt. 1982. “Mid-Nineteenth-Century British Psycho-Physiology: A Neglected Chapter in the History of Psychology.” In Woodward, William R. and Ash, Mitchell G., eds., The Problematic Science: Psychology in Nineteenth Century Thought. New York: Praeger, pp. 119–146.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine J. 1978. “British Responses to Psycho-Physiology, 1860–1900.” Isis 69: 192–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daston, Lorraine J. 1982. “The Theory of Will versus the Science of Mind.” In Woodward, William R. and Ash, Mitchell G., eds., The Problematic Science: Psychology in Nineteenth Century Thought. New York: Praeger, pp. 88–115.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1980. Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Debru, C. 2001. “Helmholtz and the Psychophysiology of Time.” Science in Context 14: 471–492.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edgeworth, Francis Y. 1877. New and Old Methods of Ethics, or “Physical Ethics” and “Methods of Ethics.” Oxford: James Parker.Google Scholar
Giocoli, Nicolo. 2003. Modeling Rational Agents: From Interwar Economics to Early Modern Game Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Lawrence. 2003. “British Society in Nineteenth-century Britain and Germany: J. M. Ludlow, Lujo Brentano, and the Labour Question.” In Harris, Jose, ed., Civil Society in British History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordin, Michael D. 2004. A Well-ordered Thing: Dmitrii Mendeleev and the Shadow of the Periodic Table. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Mit einem neuen Nachwort. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1981. Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Bd. I. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hall, Vance M. D. 1979. “The Contribution of the Physiologist, William Benjamin Carpenter 1813–1885, to the Development of the Principles of the Correlation of Forces and the Conservation of Energy.” Medical History 23: 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 2008. “Introspection, Revealed Preference and Neoclassical Economics: A Critical Response to Don Ross on the Robbins-Samuelson Argument Pattern.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 30: 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 2009. “Effective Tension in Robbins' Economic Methodology.” Economica 76 (Oct.): 831–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1978. “Dr. Bernard Mandeville: Lecture on a Master Mind.” In Hayek, Friedrich A., ed., New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas. London: Routledge, pp. 249–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidelberger, Michael. 2004. Nature from Within. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmholtz, H. v. 1995. Science and Culture: Popular and Philosophical Essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max. 1947. Eclipse of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howson, S. 2004. “The Origins of Lionel Robbins's Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science.” History of Political Economy 36: 413–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacyna, L. S. 1983. “Immanence or Transcendence: Theories of Life and Organization in Britain, 1790–1835.” Isis 74: 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, Richard. 1855. Natural Elements of Political Economy. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1969.Google Scholar
Jevons, William Stanley. 1870. “On the Natural Laws of Muscular Exertion.” Nature 2: 158–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maas, Harro. 2005a. William Stanley Jevons and the Making of Modern Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maas, Harro. 2005b. “Jevons, Mill, and the Private Laboratory of the Mind.” The Manchester School 73: 620–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1843. A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. In Robson, J. M., ed., Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. 8. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1989. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1994. Edgeworth on Chance, Economic Hazard, and Statistics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Newman, Peter. 2003. F.Y. Edgeworth: Mathematical Psychics and Further Papers on Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. 1934. “Some Reflections on “The Nature and Significance of Economics”.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 48 (3): 511–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinbach, Anson. 1992. The Human Motor: Energy, Fatigue, and the Origins of Modernity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ringer, Fritz. 2002. “Max Weber on Causal Analysis, Interpretation, and Comparison.” History and Theory 41: 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, Lionel C. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel C. 1984. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, Don. 2005. Economic Theory and Cognitive Science: Microexplanation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 2001. Rationality in Action. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sheehan, James J. 1966. The Career of Lujo Brentano: A Study of Liberalism and Social Reform in Imperial Germany. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sibum, Heinz Otto. 2005. “The Number of the Century: A History of a Scientific Fact.” In How Science Makes Sense. Amsterdam: Huizinga Institute/Praemium Erasmianum/WTMC, pp. 46–97.Google Scholar
Souter, R. W. 1933. “‘The Nature and Significance of Economic Science’ in Recent Discussion.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 47 (May): 377–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1975a. Roscher und Knies: The Logical Problems of Historical Economics, translated by Oakes, Guy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1975b. “Marginal Utility Theory and ‘The Fundamental Law of Psychophysics’,” translated by Schneider, Louis. Social Science Quarterly 56: 21–36.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1988. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. 1995. Zur Psychophysik der industriellen Arbeit: Schriften und Reden 1908–1912. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
White, Michael V. 1994. “The Moment of Richard Jennings: The Production of Jevons's Marginalist Economic Agent.” In Mirowski, Philip, ed., Natural Images in Economic Thought: “Markets Read in Tooth and Claw.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Michael. V. 2004. “In the Lobby of the Energy Hotel: W. S. Jevons’ Formulation of the Post-Classical Economic Problem.” History of Political Economy 36: 227–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, Alison. 1998. Mesmerized: Powers of Mind in Victorian Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wise, M. Norton and Smith, Crosbie. 1989a. “Work and Waste—Political Economy and Natural Philosophy in Nineteenth Century Britain.” History of Science 27: 263–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, M. Norton and Smith, Crosbie. 1989b. “Work and Waste—Political Economy and Natural Philosophy in Nineteenth Century Britain.” History of Science 27: 391–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, M. Norton and Smith, Crosbie. 1990. “Work and Waste—Political Economy and Natural Philosophy in Nineteenth Century Britain.” History of Science 28: 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zavirovski, Milan. 2001. “Max Weber's Analysis of Marginal Utility Theory and Psychology Revisited: Latent Propositions in Economic Sociology and the Sociology of Economics.” History of Political Economy 33 (3): 437–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar