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

Learn More →

Tugan-Baranovsky, the Methodology of Political Economy, and the "Russian Historical School"

Tugan-Baranovsky, the Methodology of Political Economy, and the "Russian Historical School" History of Political Economy 36:1 (2004) Alec Nove ([1970] 1990, 38) declared that Tugan’s influence on his Russian contemporaries was “at least as great as that of Marshall on English economists,” suggesting that its national importance cannot be exaggerated. While Tugan’s methodological work has rarely been discussed in detail, Joseph Schumpeter (1954, 1126 n. 9) recognized its significance as follows: Tugan-Baranowsky . . . was the most eminent Russian economist of that period. . . . The methodological aspect of his work is particularly interesting: he did much historical work of high quality; but he was also a theorist. Schumpeter’s evaluation implies that the continued neglect of Tugan’s work on methodology is unjustified. Until now, Tugan has been best known among economists for his significant contributions to trade cycle theory and for his work on the history of the Russian factory (Barnett 2001c; Tugan-Baranovsky 1970). In fact, his published work ranged far wider than this, encompassing war finance, cooperative institutions, the history of economics, and the theory of socialist planning (Barnett 2001a, 2000). The first part of this article shows how this wide range of work produced interesting methodological deliberations that in some respects echoed debates that were http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png History of Political Economy Duke University Press

Tugan-Baranovsky, the Methodology of Political Economy, and the "Russian Historical School"

History of Political Economy , Volume 36 (1) – Mar 1, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/tugan-baranovsky-the-methodology-of-political-economy-and-the-russian-1b3USkHFOr
Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2004 by Duke University Press
ISSN
0018-2702
eISSN
1527-1919
DOI
10.1215/00182702-36-1-79
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

History of Political Economy 36:1 (2004) Alec Nove ([1970] 1990, 38) declared that Tugan’s influence on his Russian contemporaries was “at least as great as that of Marshall on English economists,” suggesting that its national importance cannot be exaggerated. While Tugan’s methodological work has rarely been discussed in detail, Joseph Schumpeter (1954, 1126 n. 9) recognized its significance as follows: Tugan-Baranowsky . . . was the most eminent Russian economist of that period. . . . The methodological aspect of his work is particularly interesting: he did much historical work of high quality; but he was also a theorist. Schumpeter’s evaluation implies that the continued neglect of Tugan’s work on methodology is unjustified. Until now, Tugan has been best known among economists for his significant contributions to trade cycle theory and for his work on the history of the Russian factory (Barnett 2001c; Tugan-Baranovsky 1970). In fact, his published work ranged far wider than this, encompassing war finance, cooperative institutions, the history of economics, and the theory of socialist planning (Barnett 2001a, 2000). The first part of this article shows how this wide range of work produced interesting methodological deliberations that in some respects echoed debates that were

Journal

History of Political EconomyDuke University Press

Published: Mar 1, 2004

There are no references for this article.