Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution

Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution

Economic Sociology of Capitalist Development

Edited by Yuichi Shionoya and Tamotsu Nishizawa

This unique and original work contends that, despite the differences between Marshallian and Schumpeterian thinking, they both present formidable challenges to a broad type of social science beyond economics, particularly under the influence of the German historical school. In a departure from the received view on the nature of the works of Marshall and Schumpeter, the contributors explore their themes in terms of an evolutionary vision and method of evolution; social science and evolution; conceptions of evolution; and evolution and capitalism.

Chapter 8: The Limits to Growth: Alfred Marshall and the British Economic Tradition

Katia Caldari and Fabio Masini

Subjects: economics and finance, economic psychology, evolutionary economics, history of economic thought


Katia Caldari and Fabio Masini* 8.1 ECONOMIC THEORY AND THE LIMITS TO GROWTH In an authoritative study on Valuations for Sustainable Development, Sylvie Faucheux and Martin O’Connor (1998: 1) stated that the ‘classical economists in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries tended to regard the primary environmental supports for economic production activity as either non-scarce (such as air) or non-depletable (such as arable land)’. As Perelman (2002: 1) has underlined, the biggest paradox of economics seems to be that it is a science based on the scarcity of means but built on the hypothesis of non-scarcity of production factors. Nevertheless, this paradox does not seem to apply to ‘eighteenth- and nineteenth-century’ economists. They were perfectly aware of inputs scarcity. They could not escape considering air as a free good but they soon started to consider fresh, healthy air as a scarce input for human activities. And land, water and minerals very soon appeared to be ‘scarce’. It is only with Hotelling (1931) that economic theory starts to consider absolute scarcity, even for non-renewable resources, as a mere transitory problem which does not harm production perspectives, thanks to input substitutions brought about by changes in relative prices.1 Faucheaux and O’Connor insist on the fact that Malthus and Mill were the only exceptions among the economists of those centuries, but only for ethical reasons. Opocher (2007) extended this ethical preoccupation also to Marshall but this idea may be (and indeed has been; Caldari, 2004) challenged. We can concede that he tried to...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information