Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Morality and the Market in Victorian Britain

Morality and the Market in Victorian Britain Book Reviews labour market differ from the transactions of the slave trade, if indeed it differed at all?” ignoring the obvious distinctions between the purchase of labor and involuntary servitude (64). Instances in which the author’s animus toward economic liberalism results in some theoretical confusion — as in his discussion of cooperation (43 – 47) — could be multiplied. No less problematic is the indiscriminate use of the label “political economist.” Greg, Cobden, Smiles, Spencer, and Roebuck are among those enrolled; no one checks IDs. (In one instance a Dr. Tait joins the ranks solely by virtue of his opinion about the sources of prostitutes’ earnings [223].) Among the consequences is a tendency to overstate the dominance of Ricardian political economy, while undervaluing the impact of Mill’s transformation of it when he resurrected it in 1848. (It would have been worth engaging Biagini’s argument [1987] that Millian political economy was of great use to working-class Radicals.) If Searle fails to distinguish among thinkers, it is because he is concerned chiefly with encapsulating a “school of thought” rather than assessing the intellectual development of particular individuals. Thus he relies on a wide array of short quotations from diverse sources, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Political Economy Duke University Press

Morality and the Market in Victorian Britain

History of Political Economy , Volume 32 (2) – Jun 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/morality-and-the-market-in-victorian-britain-MEfkzF0UeD
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0018-2702
eISSN
1527-1919
DOI
10.1215/00182702-32-2-408
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Book Reviews labour market differ from the transactions of the slave trade, if indeed it differed at all?” ignoring the obvious distinctions between the purchase of labor and involuntary servitude (64). Instances in which the author’s animus toward economic liberalism results in some theoretical confusion — as in his discussion of cooperation (43 – 47) — could be multiplied. No less problematic is the indiscriminate use of the label “political economist.” Greg, Cobden, Smiles, Spencer, and Roebuck are among those enrolled; no one checks IDs. (In one instance a Dr. Tait joins the ranks solely by virtue of his opinion about the sources of prostitutes’ earnings [223].) Among the consequences is a tendency to overstate the dominance of Ricardian political economy, while undervaluing the impact of Mill’s transformation of it when he resurrected it in 1848. (It would have been worth engaging Biagini’s argument [1987] that Millian political economy was of great use to working-class Radicals.) If Searle fails to distinguish among thinkers, it is because he is concerned chiefly with encapsulating a “school of thought” rather than assessing the intellectual development of particular individuals. Thus he relies on a wide array of short quotations from diverse sources,

Journal

History of Political EconomyDuke University Press

Published: Jun 1, 2000

There are no references for this article.