This paper is an attempt to historicize Frank Plumpton Ramsey’s Apostle talks delivered from 1923 to 1925 within the social and political context of the time. In his talks, Ramsey discusses socialism, psychoanalysis, and feminism. Ramsey’s views on these three intellectual movements were interconnected, and they all contributed to his take on the policy debates occurring then on the role of women in economy. Drawing on archival materials, biographical facts, and the historiographical literature on the early interwar politics of motherhood, I show that Ramsey held a positive view of the feminist campaign for family endowment. He demanded government financial support for motherhood in recognition of the economic significance of women’s domestic works, which, as such, could bring economic independence to them. In addition, he found such an economic scheme compatible with the kind of maternalism endorsed by Freudian psychoanalysis—his favorite theory of psychology.

For forty or so years, from the 1930s to the mid-1970s, Desmond Hobart Houghton was one of South Africa’s most prominent economists, based throughout his academic career at Rhodes University. He belonged to the liberal school of economists who believed in the free market and modernization theory, being particularly influenced by Walt Rostow’s stages of growth model, which he applied to South Africa. The rural economy, migrant labor, and regional development, with a particular focus on the Eastern Cape, were his major research interests. He authored a standard text on the South African economy. This article charts his career and thinking.

In the early twentieth century, an economic doctrine known as “non-proletarianization theory” became influential among left-wing Zionists in Russia. According to this theory, Jewish workers were unable to “proletarianize”—that is, to integrate large-scale industry; hence, Jewish territorial autonomy was required, whether in Palestine or elsewhere. This article analyzes this theory’s historical development, focusing on the works of three authors: Haim Dov Horovitz, Yakov Leshchinsky, and Ber Borochov. I claim that discussions of Jewish non-proletarianization can be considered a specific and coherent intellectual tradition in the history of economic thought. I also discuss these theories’ relation to the anti-sweatshop campaign of the Progressive Era, particularly John R. Commons’s writings on Jewish immigrants that were recently debated in this journal.

Tibor Scitovsky’s The Joyless Economy (1976) is now regarded as a landmark publication in the combined fields of economics and psychology, with standard accounts of Scitovsky’s ideas emphasizing the influence of 1960s motivational psychology literature. While this encounter is all-important, Scitovsky’s ideas must at the same time be read in the context of the evolution of his critique of twentieth-century mass society. The present paper presents that critique and demonstrates its fundamental importance for Scitovsky’s diagnosis of an economy he termed “joyless.” Drawing upon his “Memoirs,” we show how Scitovsky’s ideas were initially shaped by the culture/aesthetics of his early years in Budapest, followed by his experiences of rising totalitarianism in interwar Europe, and further affected by his move to the consumption society of postwar America. The way he engaged with the writings of influential contemporary cultural commentators, including André Gide, Erich Fromm, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Lewis Mumford, and Bernard Rudofsky, was incisive. Close scrutiny also reveals resonances between Scitovsky’s cultural concerns and those of some of the Bloomsbury Group.

Surprisingly, Benjamin Graham, the acknowledged “Father of Value Investing,” considered his most important work to be the invention of the Commodity Reserve Currency Plan during the 1930s and 1940s. Previous studies of the Plan have overlooked the fact that, of its three main components (buffer stocks, price stability, and currency backing), Graham regarded the first as the most important and the other two as “secondary” or “subsidiary.” By focusing on the buffer-stock aspect, we demonstrate, first, the breadth and depth of Graham’s overall conception in terms of both micro- and macroeconomics, and, second, the considerable overlap with John Maynard Keynes’s ideas developed around the same time, which are manifested particularly in their common conclusion that the inefficiency of commodity markets could be rectified only by government intervention. We also comment on Perry Mehrling’s assessment of Graham as “not any kind of economist at all” (JHET 2011).

Milton Friedman is usually presented as an economist characterized by his empirical approach to economics. His binary classification of economics into positive means and normative ends relies on the empirical content of predictions. Throughout his career, he used extensive, data-based statistical techniques. While important scholarly attention has been devoted to Friedman’s academic and political trajectories, his methodological prescriptions, and the development of economics at the University of Chicago, we know much less about the interplay of these elements. This paper proposes an intertwined reading of them. My aim is threefold. First, to understand Friedman’s work and methodological choices, I relate his empirical approach to his early training in statistics. Second, I articulate Friedman’s understanding of economics as an empirical policy science in the process of building the image of economists as neutral advisers in the policy-making process. Third, I claim that Friedman’s empirical methodological framework, developed while he was in the Economics Department of the University of Chicago, established the guidelines for an institutional long-term project that shaped it.

Ragnar Frisch’s famous “rocking horse” model has been the object of much praise and even controversy since its publication in 1933. This paper offers a new simulation of the model to show that there exist cyclical trajectories in the propagation mechanism. By building an analytical solution taking the same form as Frisch’s original solution, we can provide new insights into the ideas encapsulated in his model, in particular the fact that the author constructed a model combining cycles and growth. The exploration of Frisch’s formal construction of the model leads us to link his statistical work on the decomposition of time series with his economic insights on investment cycles, which both led to the 1933 model. We contrast Frisch’s approach to that of other econometricians who used similar equations, showing that their different mathematical solutions were the product of what they wanted to show with their models.

The following is a transcription of a 2019 conversation with Duke historian E. Roy Weintraub about his intellectual development over the 1980s from mathematician to economist to historian. The conversation also explored Weintraub’s early and continuing attempts to forge new ways to study the history of contemporary economics, and the role of science studies in providing a natural language for such explorations. A French translation has already been published in the journal Zilsel: Science, technique, société.