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

Learn More →

The Economics of John Rae

The Economics of John Rae Book Reviews Of particular importance are the chapters on Rae’s theory of innovation and growth, in which invention rather than capital accumulation was the driving force. The book makes the case that historians should pay more attention to Rae, not because his work was neglected, but because it was so influential. It may be true that few nineteenthcentury economists read his work, but the high caliber of those who did and who were influenced by it more than compensated for its small readership, even if, like Mill (as explained by Dimand), their acknowledgment appeared to come late and was insufficiently noticed. Praise for the book, however, needs to be qualified. There are several respects in which I was disappointed by the volume. The most obvious of these is that it has faults that beset many edited volumes. Mason and Hollander both discuss Rae on conspicuous consumption, but neither references the other. Dimand, Maneschi, and Hollander similarly offer separate analyses of the infant industry argument. There are also numerous links between the chapters on supply and demand for capital; invention; capital and growth; and savings, invention, and investment supply. The result is an element of repetition and a lack http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Political Economy Duke University Press

The Economics of John Rae

History of Political Economy , Volume 33 (1) – Mar 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/the-economics-of-john-rae-IBQSqUHNVh
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2001 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0018-2702
eISSN
1527-1919
DOI
10.1215/00182702-33-1-175
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Book Reviews Of particular importance are the chapters on Rae’s theory of innovation and growth, in which invention rather than capital accumulation was the driving force. The book makes the case that historians should pay more attention to Rae, not because his work was neglected, but because it was so influential. It may be true that few nineteenthcentury economists read his work, but the high caliber of those who did and who were influenced by it more than compensated for its small readership, even if, like Mill (as explained by Dimand), their acknowledgment appeared to come late and was insufficiently noticed. Praise for the book, however, needs to be qualified. There are several respects in which I was disappointed by the volume. The most obvious of these is that it has faults that beset many edited volumes. Mason and Hollander both discuss Rae on conspicuous consumption, but neither references the other. Dimand, Maneschi, and Hollander similarly offer separate analyses of the infant industry argument. There are also numerous links between the chapters on supply and demand for capital; invention; capital and growth; and savings, invention, and investment supply. The result is an element of repetition and a lack

Journal

History of Political EconomyDuke University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.