Talk:History of economic thought

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeHistory of economic thought was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 10, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Maybe just a little...?[edit]

So, according to this article the history of economic thought is entirely dominated by white males. Additionally, the entire history of economic thought originated and developed only in Western Europe and the U.S. Really?

R.R. 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.143.123 (talk)

Unfortunately, for most of recorded history, women did not write about economics, and if they did, they were not taken seriously. I honestly cannot think of any significant female economist before the 20th century. If you know of any, please make a suggestion. As for non-Western thought, I believe that the article Ancient economic thought has a better discussion of non-Western thinkers. It would be great if you could pull in the appropriate sources from that article. I would like to do it myself, but am quite busy this semester. LK (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Beatrice Webb. Wikidea 18:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Also Joan Robinson after the 20th century, but I noticed the idiots who messed up the article removed her when they savaged the Keynes section. Wikidea 19:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, this is probably the best revision it got to - there are at the moment lots of other little useful refinements and changes here and there on that revision, but this revision was coherent, readable and followed a logical structure the whole way through (still unfinished, but more than now). Wikidea 19:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
There is substantial economic thinking both in ancient Mesopotamia and China, but good presentations are hard to get by. The Chinese thinkers should get some coverage here. Bjoertvedt (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
...and Amartya Sen, Indian economist who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1997. Contributed originally to thought on Economics and Justice... There were a number of Third World Economists who contributed to global debates during cold war / Non-Aligned Moment year. 139.163.138.11 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
So, according to this article the history of economic thought is entirely dominated by white males. Additionally, the entire history of economic thought originated and developed only in Western Europe and the U.S. Really?
Yes. Why? That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Bluebasket (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Joan Robinson redux and section placement[edit]

Per above, Mark Blaug's magisterial "Economics" section (10-pages) in Britannica, Macropedia "Social sciences" article, devotes about 40% of a column to the theory of imperfect and monopolistic competition in the 1930s under the title "The critics," which follows "The marginalists" (that is, neoclassicals). Their chief architects were respectively Joan Robinson and Edward H. Chamberlin whose books were each published in 1933. Those are by far their most cited works & with similar orders of citations for R & C. Their influence was great, indexed by chapters in most principles of economics textbooks today on monopoly, monopolistic competition & oligopoly along the lines that they laid out . That should be warrant enough for including a subsection on her, Sraffa, and Chamberlin for that matter, if someone is willing to get around to it. There's an extensive article on her in The New Palgrave (TOC). Yes, she was fierce Keynesian, Sraffian, & radical too. But first things first as to imperfect competition IMO.

The Robinson and Chamberlin books preceded Keynes's General Theory by 3 years. Sraffa's related work, which stimulated Robinson, preceded GT by 10 years (per "Sraffa, Piero," Laws of Returns section (TOC), The New Palgrave). None of them relied on GT. That would suggest locating the section before Keynes, as Blaug does. Sraffa's 1960 magnum opus was an outgrowth of his 1926 work. Far from enhancing Keynes, the current placement & heading ("Keynesian economics") might suggest that Keynes needs an anachronistic prop, which of course he does not. He's looking pretty good today (though not without controversy, as usual). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Minor corrections. 15:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

John Law[edit]

Please add a John Law section http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law

John Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compinchados (talkcontribs) 11:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Arab Islamic Caliphet[edit]

These edits added material on (roughly) Islamic economics. I'm going to pull it out. I think it doesn't belong in this article, at least as written, for a few reasons.

  • First, and most minor, it clearly doesn't belong where it is in the flow of the article, because it's out of chronology, referring to 20th-century thought mixed in with medieval thought.
  • Second, at least some of the sources are insufficient. The piece at allacademic.com appears to be unpublished, instead a conference paper. The piece from tripod.com appears self-published. Neither stands up on WIkipedia as a reliable source.
  • Third, and most worth discussion, it doesn't seem like these branches of Islamic economics have been significant in the overall history of economic thought. I admit a lot of ignorance on this matter. I know that Ibn Khaldun is credited with great feats in economics as well as other fields, but if that's to be included, it should be in the older sections, and elaborated on in that way. More modern Islamic economic thoughts don't seem to have influenced the broader field of economics in any significant way. To the extent that Islamic economics is important in the Islamic world, my (admittedly ignorant) understanding is that it's less a matter of different analysis, and more a matter of different practice.

CRETOG8(t/c) 22:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Article lack non-Western POV[edit]

I'm adding {{globalize}} tag as this article lacks non-Western POV. Sole Soul (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There's some interesting stuff on the page Ancient economic thought that can be incorporated. As for more modern theories, Leninist and Maoist thought needs some beefing up, but modern economics is pretty much mainstream economics. LK (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This article certainly needs a more worldwide view, using find there are 20 mentions of america, 11 of england, yet no mention of china one mention of india (in East India Company), this is ridiculous surely there must be some articles from the other language wikis that people with knowledge of both languages can use to round out this western article. 114.76.41.165 (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm more in sympathy with LK here as to his practical suggestions. Several Asian or Middle East writers are already mentioned under "Early economic thought." I think the appropriate standard should be "Did they contribute signifantly to the thread of later economic thought?" Possibly a section on "20th (or "Later" per Marx) socialist economics" would work. But I don't think that its absence is crucial. I do think that W. Arthur Lewis would be a worthy addition, although he might not "count", b/c he was from the Caribbean.
There are 4 living economists discussed in the article (the estimable Arrow, Coase, Krugman, Sen, and Stiglitz. One of them is of Asian origin and education.
For the 20th century, what should matter is contribution to history of economics, not history of economic thought before "economic thought" became political economy/economics and not economic history. The latter qualification is an argument against inclusion Lenin and Mao, although a reasonable case might be made either way.
In sum, I don't think that tweaking per the above would be hard to do, or that article is much deficient in that regard. Emphasis in any case should be foremost on quality maintenance per the previous section, not only by requests here. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Light edit of previous last post added. P.S. May I take this opportunity to welcome the previous discussant. -- TM 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Practically speaking this page is the History of Western economic thought[edit]

I'm just saying. And certainly not as a criticism. Perhaps the page title should reflect this reality. Bluebasket (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

1st paragraph of "Mathematical analysis" section: citation needed[edit]

So, why have a new section here just for the above heading subject? For one thing, some of the same points may apply elsewhere, the better to improve those spots similarly. Most careful readers will be able to spot other places where related remarks might apply. All this, despite quite a number of footnotes in the article already.

The following was moved from end on the 1st paragraph of "Mathematical analysis" section: of the article:[1]

Rather than using the persuasive language of classical economists like Mill, the Pareto efficient curve could be represented with a precise mathematical formula:.
  1. It reads like it is based on a secondary course, but no such source is cited. The formula did not come out of thin air, but there is no citation. It reads also like a comment by a heterodox economic writer or a satirical postmodernist critique of mainstream economics as to its alleged incomprehensibility -- the more so because there is no verbal explanation of what the notation refers to. Nothing necessarily wrong with that as such except in an encyclopedia article on history of economic thought, in which it violates WP:NPOV. Perhaps I've got it wrong and that's the notation of Pareto or a later interpreter Pareto using contemporary (that is, post-Pareto) notation. In that case, a simple citation should suffice. But anachronistic notation would, however, be esp, out of place in this article.
  2. A dated [citation needed] notation was made for 1st paragraph on Pareto, which purports to explain a Pareto graph that sounds suspiciously like an Edgeworth box, such as here:
Production and consumption small.png
But that's not Pareto. So, what's the source? I'm making such a big deal of all this, because IMO a knowledgeable reader might consider the article tainted by its presence & have stayed away from it for that reason. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC) --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree the paragraph seems both odd and oddly placed. I think I have some sources about the period of Edgeworth, Pareto and Marshall which can more appropriately make the same point about transitioning from a discursive to a mathematical discipline. I also think we should steer clear of using an Edgeworth box in that section, given that I don't think the box itself became a common tool for graphical explanation until Bowley reused/discovered it some 20 years after Edgeworth started publishing (it is related to the subject matter, but not great if we want to keep a chronology going). More comments to come. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Some possible citations or clarifications. I would turn first to Mirowski--though not an unbiased voice he is a pretty voluminous source on late 19th century mathematical economics. Rather than recommend More Heat than Light which is about 700 pages, you can look at his 1991 JEP article The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economics Analysis, particularly pp. 146-148. the latter pages are devoted to the 1930s which is a bit out of scope for this paragraph. A counter-argument for the chronology can be delegated to none other than Irving Fisher in the QJE (Jan 1898), detailing the very same process of stepping away from discursive reasoning to mathematical reasoning in Cournot's 1838 book. Some care has to be taken in interpreting the timeline, as information transmission between French, British and American economists was far from perfect and indeed was characterized by quite a bit of nationalism. Fischer does note Pareto as being in the Cournot's school so to speak (see p. 133, p. 136). Even more troubling is the notion (not really fleshed out in the mathematical econ article or the article on Pareto optimality) that Pareto efficiency was basically left fallow for a few decades and rediscovered by mathematicians cum economists in the 20s and thirties. See "No History of Ideas, Please, We're Economists" in the 2001 JEP p. 148. Protonk (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice source, that last. In retrospect, I'm afraid I was too cautious at (1) above. To go beyond it, an accessible, brief treatment of Pareto is "Pareto, Vilfredo (1848–1923)," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, section: Efficiency or ‘Pareto optimality'. Pareto improves on Edgeworth in including production, not merely exchange. Pareto's notion of efficiency is described there as having had the greatest impact of all his contributions. For describing that, the first paragraph of the "Mathematical analysis" section (on the Edgeworth-Bowley box) might be replaced. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I did a minimal Edit to try to fix the above problem,[2] stimulated by the thought how easy it might be considering how difficult I might have made it appear. --TM 02:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

filling in the gap[edit]

This source Backhaus, Jürgen Georg (2011-11-12). Handbook of the History of Economic Thought: Insights on the Founders of Modern Economics. Springer. ISBN 9781441983350. Retrieved 2 July 2012.  also An Outline of the History of Economic Thought By Ernesto Screpanti, Stefano Zamagni [3] For some (not much) non western views free History of Economic Thought: A Critical Account of the Origin and Development of the Economic Theories of the Leading Thinkers in the Leading Nations By Lewis H. Haney (old but free at questia ) [4] The first one listed is the best for wikipedia I think. If any one is interested I could look around for more. J8079s (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Physiocrats and Henry George[edit]

Physiocrats and Henry George

Doesn't the school of the importance of land value and it's control belong somewhere in here? 68.48.204.94 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Richard Cantillon[edit]

There is no mention of this important author here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.127.171.212 (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Prose needed[edit]

Much of this article amounts to a list of names along with brief descriptions of each person. What we need in order for this to be an actual article is prose which weaves a coherent narrative. This will probably involve citing many fewer names of economists, and it will certainly require a lot of work. Please don't make that job harder by adding further superfluous detail that doesn't move this article closer to something someone would actually want to read. -hugeTim (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

As an example, see this excerpt from a Britannica article: a page of their "historical development of economics" section -hugeTim (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I see your point, I also think that the almost every economist mentioned is "significant". If we look at the more modern sections, they either have a nobel laureate or feature in a significant template. I had a run through and the only obvious part to chop was Richard Rahn, which I have removed (the Rahn curve is not a well known theory, and it was added by an anonymous IP address).Byronmercury (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe limiting the main headings to concepts with sub headings for very significant economists. @Hugetim: is right that is comes across as a list of names. Also, too many pictures clustering the end of the article - this may resolve itself when more prose are added.
Another idea may be to split the article into several by time period - an over arching article could be made, called something like overview of history of economic thought.
The article managers better than Economic history, of which a large chunk is literally a list of names. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
well, I think that the two sections on Amartya Zen and Jean Tirole can certainly be expanded - they are currently the weakest: they are both nobel laureates and I can work out some prose for them (and probably link the sections to other pages). Give me a bit of time, as I am working on some other pages as well! I have not worked on the article before, so have little to say on the "big picture". However, I think that the article is useful in that it provides a "time line" that mostly links to other pages with more detail and prose. That is how I came to look at this page: I needed to find something out and it got me to where I wanted. As for the photos, I think that we could definately do without Dominique Strauss Kahn and probably Martin Wolfe. DSK is not an economist, but a politician so does not need to be on this page. Wolfe is a journalist and does not do economic research in terms of writing research papers in refereed journals. However, he is a very influential economic journalist. On balance, I would leave his picture out as he has not made a contribution to economic thought, but more to the contemporary economic debate which is not really what this page is about.Byronmercury (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Great that you can work on improving and expanding the text. I've removed the two photos you suggested, and moved some to the right. I'm in favor of having all photos moved to the right, and culling so that they match the length of the article. I'd rather have the article more readable vs prettiness. Additionally, the photo are available on the economist's individual pages.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure about all pictures on right: the article has them on both sides and then suddenly switches towards the end. I removed Akerlof from New Keynenesian, since he already appears in the information section (which is what he got his Nobel prize for).Byronmercury (talk) 11:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Tidied up pictures: combined a few more. Deleted Paul Craig Roberts, since he was more of a policy maker than an economic thinker. If we have a picture, would have to be Laffer himself! Byronmercury (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How to improve article navigation, does anything need removing[edit]

@I dream of horses, Byronmercury, Amatulic, Hugetim, Warko, Unbuttered Parsnip, Y-S.Ko, and Hendrick 99: How to improve article navigation, what to remove and what to keep?

I have brought this to RfC because I think we need a methodical way to improve the navigation of the article. Ways of improving navigation include-

  • Removal of sections
  • Making sections more concise
  • Grouping sections into general themes (currently there are about 42 main headings in the article)

If we are removing and grouping its good to use references to guide us. I've found two candidates, are there any others?


New School groupings (four headings, each with two subheadings)
  1. Schools of Political Economy
    1. Pre-Classical
    2. Classical
  2. Neoclassical Schools
    1. Anglo-American
    2. Continental
  3. Alternative Schools
    1. Heterodox
    2. Keynesian
  4. Thematic Schools
    1. Themes
    2. Other


  • An Outline of the History of Economic Thought (book)
adapted from An Outline... groupings (12 headings, mutliple subheadings)
  1. Beginning of Political Economy
    1. Beginning of Modern World
    2. Mercantilism
    3. Forerunners to Classical Political Economy
  2. Laissez-Faire Revolution and Smithian
    1. Laissez-Faire Revolution
    2. Adam Smith
    3. Smithian Orthodoxy
  3. Ricardo to Mill
    1. Ricardo and Malthus
    2. Disintegration of Classical Political Economy in the Age of Ricardo
    3. Theories of Economic Harmony and Mill's Synthesis
    4. English Monetary Theories and Debates in the Age of Classical Economics
  4. Socialist Economic Thought and Marx
    1. Utopia to Socialism
    2. Socialist Theories
    3. Marx's Theory
  5. Utilitarianism and the Marginalist Revolution
    1. Marginalist Revolution
    2. William Stanley Jevons
    3. Leon Walras
    4. Carl Menger
  6. Neoclassical Orthodoxy
    1. Belle Epoque
    2. Neoclassical England and Marshall
    3. Neoclassical America
    4. Neoclassical Austria and Sweden
    5. Neoclassical Italy and Pareto
  7. High Theory one
    1. Economic Dynamics
    2. John Keynes
    3. Michal Kalecki
    4. Joseph Schumpeter
  8. High Theory two
    1. Market Forms
    2. General Economic Equilibrium
    3. New Welfare Economics
    4. Economic Calculation under Socialism
    5. Alternative Approaches
  9. Contemporary Macroeconomics
    1. Golden Age to Stagnation
    2. Neoclassical Synthesis
    3. Monetarist Counter-Revolution
    4. Disequilibrium to Non-Walrasian Equilibrium
    5. Post-Keynesian
    6. Keynesian Macroeconomics
  10. Neoclassical Economics and Crisis
    1. Neo-Walrasian Approach
    2. New Welfare Economics and the Economic Justice
    3. Controversy on Marginalism in Firm and Markets
  11. Orthodoxy Margins
    1. Games, Evolution and Growth
    2. Production as a Circular Process
    3. Marxist Thought Orthodoxy to Revision
  12. Post-Smithian
    1. The Millennium
    2. Contemporary Institutionalist and Evolutionary Theory
    3. Institutional Analysis
    4. Radical Economy
    5. Beyond Homo oeconomicus


These refs can act as a guide as to what to put in (or not), as well as a guide on how to structure the article. What are peoples thoughts? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

West and East Germans at the Brandenburg Gate in 1989.jpg

Part of a series on the
History of the Cold War

Origins of the Cold War
World War II
(Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
War conferences
Eastern Bloc
Western Bloc
Iron Curtain
Cold War (1947–1953)
Cold War (1953–1962)
Cold War (1962–1979)
Cold War (1979–1985)
Cold War (1985–1991)
Frozen conflicts
Timeline  · Conflicts
Historiography
Cold War II


-- Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Tue 08:25, wikitime= 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

  • My point of view: The subheadings in sections 2 (2 Economic thought in the Middle Ages) and 3 (Mercantilism, nationalism, and international trade) can be eliminated entirely, and substituted with boldface terms for the people and schools. Those are all very short sections that can exist rather nicely as paragraphs. That would help take a big bite out of the long TOC. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with ~Amatulić; I think that once we get beyond section 11, we need bigger sections with subheadings/boldface terms. Sections become paragraphs. Also, I had a quick go at combining photos: did a sample of two "mash ups". I was inspired by History of macroeconomics. I would be happy to do more - where a section has more than 1 person, we can combine. Greatly reduces picture clutter. If people like it, I can do more (Akerlof and Stiglitz; Myerson and Maskin).Byronmercury (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I also agree, remove headers for single paragraph sections. I also like the idea of using an infobox 'series' if the article is spilt. A section could be incorporated into the current economic infobox. The method of combining pictures into one frame also sounds like an improvement. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
After looking at the article - one reservation with removing the subheading is that a section will be quite long. This is especially true with 3 Mercantilism, nationalism, and international trade and 5 Classical. Perhaps there is a logical way to have a couple of sub headings here?
Also what is best way to group things after section 11 - its mainly dealing with the 20th century?Jonpatterns (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Some of the major headings already have articles, such as Ancient economic thought. However, there are different focuses, such as the detail of theories, the thinking behind the theories and the thinkers behind the theories. I'm not sure about the Thematic schools heading. I think this may have been a catch all made up by New School? Jonpatterns (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
might I suggest a shift. I notice that the new classical school (Lucas, Kydland etc.) are included under section 7 (neoclassical thought). What we could do is to make a section 8 "Keynesian Economics" under which we could include the current 8.2, and add the two sections "new Keynesian economics" and "the Keynesian resurgence". Alternatively we could take the new classical school out of section 7 and combine it with relvent sections under the heading "Macroeconmics since 1970". On splitting the article: I think that this should be a last resort, but certainly one that may be necessary!Byronmercury (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the article needs to reflect the major economic influences for each time period, as well as including the origin of each idea. Rather than grouping each school of thought across big time periods.
I've made the Post 2008 events all one section. I got rid of the term 'austerity wave', it doesn't appear to be commonly used, and wasn't stated in the two references included.
@Byronmercury: There is a template that allow the combining of images, may be easier than manually editing Template:Multiple_image. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@Jonpatterns: Great, thanks: I will combine the images using this template - much more efficient. Hope you do not mind, but I combined a few sections: development (Lewis and Kuznets with Sen), trade theory (Meade with Krugman) and keynesian (new and post Keynesian with Keynesian). I take your point about "grouping each school of thought across big time periods": if you disagree with any of these, please feel free to reverse. Once the overall way to cover the material is agreed they can always be recombined across the new sections. I agree with your combining post 2008 and austerity.Byronmercury (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Good work combining sections. I'm going to work on incorporating economic history articles into the Economics sidebar. Regarding Mercantilism, nationalism, and international trade, this seems to correspond to the Early modern period.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Sections[edit]

I've lumped together some sections by school, and the remaining by time (eg early-mid 20th Century and mid-late 20th). There is probably a better way section into schools but this is a start. I've removed names from some of the sections, ideally the section will be named after the concept, with the key people detailed in the section text.

Out of interest here is the article in Nov 2008 not long after it failed a 'good article' assessment, and here in January before the 'new cull'.

I think there may be a need for complimentary articles for perhaps each century, where less dominant but still notable ideas can be detailed.

Jonpatterns (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

looking good. New sections make more sense. I will work a bit with the pictures. The template you directed me to needs a little thought when the pictures are of diferent sizes, but I am sure I can work it out. I added some text for Sen as promised, but tirole more problematic. Also a feature of his page Jean Tirole: currently just a list of prizes and no explanantion of what his work is. Maybe when the Tirole page is sorted we can add it in.Byronmercury (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dates after names[edit]

Is it beneficial to have the lifespan (1945-) every time an economist is introduced? Maybe is is only necessary when the time their work was published is unknown? Jonpatterns (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is useful for the uninformed reader.Byronmercury (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

/* Ibn Khaldun */ dubious template[edit]

I have actually never heard of this man, but he has a substantial page on the english wikipedia and pages in maybe two dozen languages and all you can find to say about him is that :"Until Joseph J. Spengler's 1964 work "Economic Thought of Islam: Ibn Khaldun", Adam Smith (1723–1790) was believed to be the "Father of Economics". Now there is a second candidate, Arab Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) of Tunisia, although how the Muslim world fell behind the West[dubious – discuss], or what influence Khaldun had in the West is unclear."? Wow. Look, I didn't dig too deep, but the French page was translated from the German one, and the English page is not flagged as such, so there's a likelihood that they are completely different. There's apparently a lot that could be said here about this man, and yes I realize that is a summary page, and, and yes I am aware that the standard retort is that I can do it. Yes, I do know that. At the moment I am copyediting. I have paused that task to point out that a) this statement, compared to the loving attention given to (yawn) Plato and Aristotle, covered over and over again everywhere, is a mite embarrassing, and b) the condescending tone here really should be addressed. The Muslim world fell behind the west? Really? Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what you say above. The article needs to be balanced correctly, and Western bias removed. As well as the article on Ibn Khaldun there is a section on Ancient_economic_thought#Ibn_Khaldun which may be a useful summary.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)he was
In the text I added to this section I disambiguated lifecycle to the biological meaning, since he was essentially talking about the rise and fall of civilizations. There is an economic entry for the term, but the meaning does not match. Also, since nobody is defending the ethnoentric comment, I am just going to remove it, since it doesn't really add any information.Elinruby (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Fan Li Comment[edit]

Looked at his wikipedia page. Isn't he more of a business thinker than an economist, from what I can see? Elinruby (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a lot of overlap between economics and business, business can be seen as a sub division of economics. Especially considering the time period I think it is worthwhile including Fan Li.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Drakopoulos's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Drakopoulos has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Introduction

...the philosopher Aristotle examined ideas about the art of wealth acquisition… Please add: the problem of value, ...

School of Salamanca only to have their contributions[clarification needed[. Please add: One of the basic characteristics of the school was that it was integrated within an ethical and religious framework which became progressively incompatible with the aims and values of the emerging secular scientific spirit (Drakopoulos and Gotsis, 2004).

Drakopoulos, S. A and Gotsis, G. (2004) “A Meta-theoretical Assessment on the Decline of the Scholastic Economics in the History of Economic Thought.” History of Economics Review, vol. 40: 19-45.

Sir James Steuart with the term "political economy" in the title, and the first complete economics treatise. Citation: Karayiannis, A. D (1994) "Sir James Steuart on the Managed Market", in D. Reisman (ed), Economic Thought and Political Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 37-61.

Jeremy Bentham

Bentham set out his theory of utility … Please add: ...which had a substantial impact on the economic thought of early Neoclassical economists like Jevons and Walras (Drakopoulos, 1991). Drakopoulos S. A (1991). Values and Economic Theory, Aldershot: Gower-Avebury.

Francis Ysidro Edgeworth Please add: In his main work, Edgeworth applies extensively mathematical methods into economic problems (Weintraub, 2002). Weintraub, E.R (2002). How Economics Became a Mathematical Science, Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.

New Keynesian macroeconomics such as the possibility of significant welfare benefits from macroeconomic stabilization.[87] Please add: However, there are criticisms of the methodological compatibility of Keynes's approach within such a framework (Dow, 2012).

Dow S (2012) Keynes on Knowledge, Expectations, and Rationality. In: Frydman R, Phelps ES (ed.). Rethinking Expectations: The Way Forward for Macroeconomics, Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press, pp. 112-129.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Drakopoulos has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Drakopoulos, Stavros A., 2014. "Mainstream Aversion to Economic Methodology and the Scientific Ideal of Physics," MPRA Paper 57222, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of economic thought. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)