Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T15:37:59.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TEACHING GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM THEORY IN THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY: AN ANALYSIS OF TREATISES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2025

Lúcia Regina Centurião
Lúcia Regina Centurião*
Affiliation:
Lúcia Regina Centurião: professor at the São Paulo School of Economics.
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the teaching of Walrasian general equilibrium theory in the early twentieth century through an analysis of three treatises: Arthur Bowley’s The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics (1924), Gustav Cassel’s The Theory of Social Economy (1924), and Étienne Antonelli’s Principes d’économie pure (1914). Despite their original contributions, the three works were also intended to be read by students. Examining these treatises contributes to a historical understanding of pre-war economics education literature and sheds light on the evolution of mathematical economics, particularly within the context of the educational process. The paper concludes that while all three treatises presented Léon Walras’s general equilibrium framework, they simultaneously reflected diverse fundamental beliefs about economic science, such as its objective and scope. Notably, there was no singular dominant group appropriating Walras’s model. However, a content analysis revealed structural similarities among the treatises.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , First View , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of History of Economics Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – Brazil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.

References

REFERENCES

Antonelli, Étienne. 1914. Principes d’économie pure: la théorie de l’échange sous le régime de la libre concurrence. Paris: Librairie des Sciences Politiques et Sociales.Google Scholar
Antonelli, Étienne. 1939. L’économie pure du capitalisme. Paris: Librairie M. Riviére.Google Scholar
Arida, Persio. 1983. “A História do Pensamento Econômico como Teoria e Retórica” [The history of economic thought as theory and rhetoric]. Texto para discussão , No. 54. Rio de Janeiro: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, No. 54.Google Scholar
Boianovsky, Mauro. 2016. “Knut Wicksell on Utility and Market Aggregation.” History of Political Economy 48 (2): 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowley, Arthur L. 1924. The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics: An Introductory Treatise. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brems, Hans J. 1986. “Gustav Cassel’s Contributions to Economic Theory.” BEBR Faculty Working Paper, No. 1282.Google Scholar
Cassel, Gustav. 1903. The Nature and Necessity of Interest. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cassel, Gustav. 1924. The Theory of Social Economy. London: Adelphi Terrace.Google Scholar
Cassel, Gustav. 1928. Socialism eller framatskridande. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Dalton, Hugh. 1924. “Review: The Theory of Social Economy, by Gustav Cassel.” Economica (11): 223–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diemer, Arnaud. 2006. “Existe-t-il une Tradition Française de la Théorie de l’équilibre Général?” Document de travail. Project Histoire des Savoirs. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Edgeworth, Francis Y. 1920. “Professor Cassel’s Treatise.” Economic Journal 30 (120): 530–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
F., A. W. 1924. “Review: The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics, by A. L. Bowley.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 87 (4): 619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forder, James. 2015. “Textbooks on the Phillips Curve.” History of Political Economy 47 (2): 207–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frobert, L. 1997. “L’économie politique d’Étienne Antonelli (1879–1971).” Revue économique 48 (6): 1529–1559.Google Scholar
Giraud, Yann. 2018. “Textbooks in the History of Recent Economics: The Case of Samuelson’s Economics.” History of Political Economy 50 (3): 579–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldin, Claudia, and Katz, Lawrence F.. 2008. The Race between Education and Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Craufurd. D. 2008. “History of Economic Thought.” In Durlauf, Steven N. and Blume, Lawrence E., eds., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Second edition. New York: Springer, pp. 5886–5900.Google Scholar
Jaffé, William. 1965. Correspondence of Léon Walras and Related Papers. Volume III. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Jaffé, William. 1983. “A Centenarian on a Bicentenarian: Leon Walras’s Elements on Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.” In Walker, Donald, ed., William Jaffé’s Essays on Walras. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 93–107.Google Scholar
Jones, Homer, and Hart, Albert G.. 1934. “Professor Cassel’s Treatise.” Journal of Political Economy 42 (4): 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, John E, and Millmow, Alex. 2003. “Death of a Revolutionary Textbook.” History of Political Economy 35 (1): 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1890. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan and Company.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1848. Principles of Political Economy. London: John Parker.Google Scholar
Moll, Bruno. 1947. “Gustavo Cassel (1866–1945).” El Trimestre Económico 55 (3): 457–466.Google Scholar
Morini-Comby, Jean. 1953. “La Carrière Enseignante d’Étienne Antonelli.” Revue d’Histoire économique et sociale 31 (4): 355–363.Google Scholar
P., L. L. 1914. “Review: Principes d’Économie Politique Pure.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 77 (8): 884–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, H. 1924. “Review: The Theory of Social Economy, by Gustav Cassel and Joseph McCabe.” Economic Journal 134 (34): 234–241.Google Scholar
Potier, Jean-Pierre. 2019. “La réception de l’économie politique pure en France (1873–1926)." In Potier, Jean-Pierre, Léon Walras, économiste et socialiste libéral, Essais. Paris: Classiques Garnier, pp. 221–257.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. [1954] 2006. History of Economic Analysis. Oxfordshire: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simiand, François. 1909. “Remarques sur l’économie mathématique en général.” L’année sociologique 11: 516–545.Google Scholar
Tappan, Marjorie. 1925. “The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics by A. L. Bowley.” Economica 15: 334–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teixeira, Pedro. 2014. “Serving the Institute and the Discipline: The Changing Profile of Economics at MIT as Viewed from Textbooks.” History of Political Economy 46 (suppl.): 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
V., G. D. 1914. “Review: Principes d’économie politique pure—la théorie de l’échange sous le régime de la libre concurrence by Antonelli and G. Renard." Giornale degli Economisti e Rivista di Statistica 20 (4): 265.Google Scholar
Walker, Donald A. 2003. “Early General Equilibrium Economics: Walras, Pareto, and Cassel.” In Samuels, Warren J., Biddle, Jeff E., and Davis, John B., eds., A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 278–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Donald A. 2006. Walrasian Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walras, Léon. 1879. “De la culture et de l’enseignement des sciences morales et politiques.” Bibliothèque Universelle et Revue Suisse 3 (7-9): 5–32.Google Scholar
Walras, Léon. 1954. Elements of Pure Economics or the Theory of Social Wealth. London: Allen & Urwin.Google Scholar
Young, Allyn A. 1925. “Review: The Mathematical Groundwork of Economics, by A. L. Bowley.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 20 (149): 133–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar