Knowledge that Transforms

I WOULD LIKE to call the attention of the meeting to the Italian writer Francesco Fuoco, who, in the fourth of his Economic Essays (Pisa, 1827), discussed at length Use of Algebra in Political (i, 61-120). The table of contents of his book at once gives some idea, perhaps an exaggerated one, about its contents: Preface. Chapter I.-Use of Algebra. Chapter II.-Is Algebra adapted to apply to the objects of Political Economy? Chapter III.-Examples of some of the principal applications of Algebra to the aims of Political Economy. Chapter IV.-How far one can usefully extend the application of Algebra to Political Economy? Chapter V.-Consequences, observations, and summing up, of the essay. Fuoco is mentioned by Cossa, Jevons, and in Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy, but if he really treated all these subjects, eleven years before Cournot, in a conscious and constructive way, he could rightly be called an unknown economist. Truly, his actual treatment of the problem is rather careless, and it exhibits several mistakes which mathematical economists ought to avoid. But still his exact general argument cannot be overlooked, and we should not forget his service in opposing the view adopted too hurriedly (on the occasion of the unhappy attempt of Canard) by J. B. Say, who espoused the position that mathematics cannot find a place in economic research. The confutation of such a great authority as Say in a question of this importance is sufficient to ensure a place for the Italian writer in the history of economic thought.

L'CEUVRE 6conomique de Cournot comprend seulement deux ouvrages: (1) Recherches sur les principes mathgmatiques de la thgorie des richesses, publie en 1838, et (2) Principes de la thWorie des richesses publi6 en 1863. Le second ouvrage ne contient d'ailleurs aucun d6veloppement math6matique et reprend, en les completant, les idees exposees dans le premier; celui-ci contient donc en substance tous les elements des problemes traites par Cournot. Pour apprecier l'importance de la contribution de notre auteur aux progres de la science 6conomique, il suffit de rappeler l'opinion de Leon Walras, le fondateur de l'icole de Lausanne, qui, lisant en 1873, devant l'Academie des Sciences morales et politiques de Paris, son memoire sur l'ichange, proclamait que Cournot 6tait le premier auteur qui eat tent6 franchement et serieusement d'appliquer les mathematiques A 1'itconomie politique; Walras ne dissimulait d'ailleurs pas que la lecture des Recherches avait fait une forte impression sur son esprit, en l'orientant vers les 6tudes qui devaient le conduire A formuler les principes de l'6quilibre 6conomique. De meme, Stanley Jevons, qui prend connaissance, en 1872, du premier ouvrage de Cournot, reconnatt en lui un precurseur, et signale ses travaux A l'attention du monde savant. De son c6te, Marshall insiste sur l'influence qu'a eue l'auteur frangais sur ses propres travaux et il considere comme regrettable que les 6tudes de Cournot, compl6t6es plus tard par celles de Dupuit, aient 6te trop longtemps tenues A l'6cart par les travaux de l'itcole anglaise sur le coAt de production. Enfin, le professeur Edgeworth considere que les enonces de Cournot constituent la meilleure presentation mathematique de certaines des plus hautes gen6ralisations de l'itconomie politique. La valeur de ses travaux n'est donc contestee par personne, bien que Cournot n'ait pas et6 le premier, qui se soit essaye a pr6senter les phenomenes 6conomiques au moyen de l'appareil mathematique; parmi ses precurseurs, deux seulement paraissent devoir retenir l'attention: Isnard, Ing6nieur des Ponts-et-Chaussees, qui, en 1781, publia un Traitg des Richesses, et Von Thutnen, dont le premier ouvrage, publi6 en 1826, peut etre egalement consid6r6 comme susceptible de marquer une date dans l'histoire de l'Itconomie math6matique. Mais l'ceuvre de Cournot ne se limite pas au seul domaine 6conomique, et pour apprecier sainement l'importance de sa contribution en cette matiere, il est indispensable de proc6der a un inventaire, meme sommaire, des ouvrages qu'il publia aux diverses 6poques de sa vie;

follows. This letter shows the profound influence that mathematical training had on his whole economic work, as it had also, but in a different way, in the case of Colson himself. It was as a high official of the Conseil d'Rtat and at the Ministere des Travaux Publics, that Colson was led to apply himself to Political Economy. He naturally built on the strong mathematical foundations he had laid at the teole Polytechnique and the Rcole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussees. Thus he reached a scientific economics through a route quite different from Marshall's, and the agreement of the two is very significant. Balliol Croft, 6 Madingley Road, Cambridge DEAR SIR,

THE progress of economic science from the Tableau e6conomique of Quesnay up to the Synthetic Economics of Moore may be symbolized by a tree gradually growing higher. The tree trunk is strongly rooted and its nature was determined by the place where it grew. Signs of a fresh orientation have become increasingly frequent during the last ten years, but, as yet, we do not see clearly which method to follow to unite the economics of yesterday to that of tomorrow. In the meantime, we can observe how minute inquiries into economic cycles, the laborious statistical determination of demand curves, and similar studies, are constantly opening up new perspectives of the fundamental economic problems. The classical theory was essentially that of Ricardo, and any effort to build up a theory conforming to modern economic life and modern scientific conceptions must, therefore, be in conflict with the Ricardian edifice. The classical, Ricardian theory is an economic theory of static equilibrium. Any attempt to look for assumptions more true to economic life will more or less become an economic theory of Time. It is a remarkable fact that most economists who have attempted an exhaustive analysis of these economic factors, in which time is necessarily involved, have found themselves at variance with the classical economic theory of Equilibrium. Two names must be mentioned in this connection: Stanley Jevons and Knut Wicksell. In this short account of the latter I shall take up only a single aspect of his work, and try to show why and how he may be called a pioneer of econometrics. With regard to Wicksell's life and work in general, I shall content myself with the brief statement that he was born in 1851 and died in 1926, and that his three principal works were published at the age of 42 to 47 years, that is to say, between 1893 and 1898: Ueber Wert, Kapital und Rente (Jena, 1893), Finanztheoretische Untersuchungen (Jena, 1896), and Geldzins und Giuterpreise (Jena, 1898). He was a professor of Political Economy at Lund University, Sweden, from 1900 to 1916, and two volumes of Lectures appeared during this period, one of which is a theory of money (1906), and the other a theory of value based on the principle of marginal utility (1913). A synopsis of Wicksell's econometric works can be given under the following five heads: 113

textabstractAlso published in: David F. Hendry and Mary S. Morgan (Eds), The Foundations of Econometric Analysis, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995, pp. 322-339