The author's path from heterodoxy to economic history to the history of economics is used as a case study to explore tensions between “doing economics” and “doing the history of economics,” between the ideological vision (Schumpeter) motivating a research agenda and the even-handed execution of research. These same tensions appear in the history of capital controversy, which contains deep questions of history and path dependence versus equilibrium models, limitations of aggregate production functions, and the roles of vision and ideology in the reluctance to abandon insights of one-commodity models when results are not robust.

The article contrasts an intellectual history perspective on the transition from classical to neo-classical economics with doctrinal accounts of the marginal revolution. Marshall’s opinions on the mixture of theoretical, methodological, and moral and political elements involved in the generational divide shows that more was at stake than accounts in which theory alone is stressed suggest. It is also argued that in other respects less was at stake: drawing a sharp dividing line between pre- and post-marginal treatments of policy issues does not do justice to underlying continuities in the empirical utilitarian tradition. The article is dedicated to the memory of R. D. C. (Bob) Black, whose work on Jevons illustrates the benefits of an intellectual historian’s approach to this significant transition in economic thinking.

The article contrasts an intellectual history perspective on the transition from classical to neo-classical economics with doctrinal accounts of the marginal revolution. Marshall's opinions on the mixture of theoretical, methodological, and moral and political elements involved in the generational divide shows that more was at stake than accounts in which theory alone is stressed suggest. It is also argued that in other respects less was at stake: drawing a sharp dividing line between pre- and post-marginal treatments of policy issues does not do justice to underlying continuities in the empirical utilitarian tradition. The article is dedicated to the memory of R. D. C. (Bob) Black, whose work on Jevons illustrates the benefits of an intellectual historian's approach to this significant transition in economic thinking.

Why did classical utilitarian thinkers offer only a thin defense of the institution of private property? Utilitarians might have viewed such a defense as irrelevant, trivial, or impossible. A fourth hypothesis holds that utilitarians were ambivalent about the institution, itself. The utilitarians are clear on the relevance of a defense. Triviality would have to be based on 18th century philosophers and historians. Impossibility would raise serious questions about the utilitarian project. Ambivalence seems the most plausible explanation. Utilitarian writings throw considerable doubt on their own commitment to the strongest versions of the defense of private property.

This article examines the literature on the periodical recurrence of economic crises up to the 1840s, illustrating how awareness of this phenomenon was far more widespread than the few existing histories of business cycle theories indicate, that observations of this phenomenon began much earlier than previously documented, and also that early writers were more interested in emphasizing the intermittent return of crises rather than their precise timing.