Abstract
Francis Ysidro Edgeworth1 was born on 8 February 1845 in Edgeworthstown in County Longford, Ireland. The family name had in fact been taken from Edgeworth (now Edgeware) in England, where the family settled in the reign of Elizabeth I. Since that time, however, the family has declined in size and the male line has become almost extinct. Richard Lovell Edgeworth, the head of the family in the eighteenth century, had 4 wives and 22 children.2 One of these children was the novelist Maria Edgeworth (1767–1847), who was friendly with Ricardo and Bentham,3 and who was described by Edgeworth as ‘a very plain old lady with a delightful face’.4
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Keynes quotes Marshall as saying, with reference to Edgeworth’s mixed ancestry, ‘Francis is a charming fellow, but you must be careful with Ysidro’: J. M. Keynes, Essays in Biography (London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society, 1972) [hereafter cited as EB] p. 265.
For a fascinating account of the Edgeworth family, see J. H. Butler and H. E. Butler, The Black Book of Edgeworthstown and other Edgeworth Memories 1585–1817 (London: Faber and Gwyer, 1927).
This was a nice combination for Edgeworth, of the first major abstract theorist and the pioneering utilitarian. See also M. Edgeworth, Memories of Richard Lovell Edgeworth, Esq., Begun by Himself and Concluded by His Daughter, Maria Edgeworth, 2 vols (London: R. Hunter, 1820).
It should be rememberd that Edgeworth was only two when she died! But on his memory, see Keynes, EB, p. 254; A. L. Bowley, ‘F. Y. Edgeworth’, Econometrica, II (1934) 113–124, at p. 123,
and L. L. Price, ‘Obituary of Edgeworth’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society [hereafter cited as JRSS], LXXXIX (1926) 371–7, at p. 28.
He was going with a nephew T. L. Beddoes. The story told by Kendall in E. S. Pearson and M. G. Kendall (eds), Studies in the History of Statistics and Probability (London: Griffen, 1970) is incorrect, but see Butler and Butler, op. cit., p. 248.
See J. K. Whitaker (ed.), The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867–1890, vol. I (London: Macmillan, 1975). [Hereafter cited as Wh.I.]
But see also the comments on Marshall, Jowett and the use of mathematics by Edgeworth in A. C. Pigou (ed.), Memorials of Alfred Marshall 1842–1924 (London: Macmillan, 1925) [hereafter cited as Mems.] p. 66.
Jevons resigned from Owens College and moved to University College, London, in 1875. Edgeworth had lodgings at 5, Mount Vernon. In a letter to Mrs Jevons after Jevons’s death, Edgeworth wrote, ‘I shall always remember with gratitude the kind encouragement and a peculiar intellectual sympathy which he extended to one whose studies were in the same direction, however immeasurably behind his’: R. D. C. Black, ‘W. S. Jevons and the Economists of his Time’, Manchester School, XXX (1962) 203–22. Keynes wrote, ‘I have no evidence that his interest in economics antedated his contact with Jevons’ (EB, p. 148, n 4). Edgeworth says that his paper on ‘The Hedonical Calculus’, Mind, IV (1879) 394–408, was written in ignorance of Jevons’s work. See Mathematical Psychics (London: Kegan Paul, 1881) [hereafter cited as MP] p. 34.
He earlier lectured on English Language and Literature at Bedford College, London. See T. W. Hutchison, A Review of Economic Doctrines 1870–1929 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953) p. 109.
A list has been compiled under the direction of H. G. Johnson. I am grateful to Klaus Hennings for showing me a copy of this list. See also Kendall, op. cit., and S. M. Stigler, ‘Francis Ysidro Edgeworth, Statistician’, JRSS, CXLI (1978) 287–322.
Op. cit., p. 119. See A. L. Bowley, Edgeworth’s Contribution to Mathematical Statistics (London: Royal Statistical Society, 1928). The only paper of which Edgeworth was co-author was written with Bowley, ‘Methods of Representing Statistics of Wages and Other Groups not Fulfilling the Normal Law of Error’, JRSS, LXV (1902) 325–54.
It is interesting to note that the major contributions to the subject of index numbers have been made by economists. See, for example, J. A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (London: Allen & Unwin, 1955). [Hereafter cited as History.]
See A. C. Pigou, ‘Professor Edgeworth’s Collected Papers’, Economic Journal [hereafter cited as ЕJ], XXV (1925) 177–185, at p. 179.
Edgeworth had previously applied for chairs in Philosophy at King’s in 1880, and in Philosophy and Political Economy at Liverpool in 1881. See Jevons’s testimonials in R. D. C. Black (ed.), Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons, vol. III (London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society, 1978) p. 98. He also applied for a chair in Greek at Bedford College in 1875; see S. Stigler, op. cit., p. 289.
One wonders how students would react to the now familiar distinctions, ‘… the two meanings of increased demand … are most easily and with least liability to logomachy distinguished as the variation of an ordinate (1) due to displacement of the curve, the abscissa not varying, or (2) corresponding to an increment of the abscissa, the curve being undisturbed’. See F. Y. Edgeworth, Papers Relating to Political Economy, 3 vols (London: Macmillan for the Royal Economic Society, 1925) vol. II [hereafter cited as Papers, II], p. 275 n 2. On Edgeworth’s influence in Oxford, see Bowley, Econometrica, loc. cit., p. 123.
The formation of the Royal Economic Society in 1890 is described by A. W. Coats, ‘The Origins and Early Development of the Royal Economic Society’. EJ, LXXVIII (1968) 349–71.
An incident concerning Cunningham and a rejoinder to Marshall (which Edgeworth refused to publish) is discussed in A. W. Coats, ‘Sociological Aspects of British Economic Thought 1880–1930’, Journal of Political Economy [hereafter cited as JPE], LXXV (1967) 715–29, at p. 712 n 10.
Edgeworth referred to the ‘age of luxuriant speculation when novel theories teem in so many new economic journals’; quoted by A. W. Coats in ‘The Historicist Reaction in English Political Economy’, Economica, XXI (1954) 143–53.
But Edge worth rarely did genuine empirical work. A rare test is presented, rather tongue in cheek, in Papers, II, p. 323 n 4 concerning the relationship between wine consumption per head and size of party in ‘a certain Oxford college’. The data were given in per cent form, lest he ‘should excite the envy of some and the contempt of others’. In fact, he was pessimistic of estimating economic schedules. See Papers, I, p. 8, and R. H. Inglis Palgrave (ed.), Dictionary of Political Economy, 3 vols (London: Macmillan, 1894) vol. I, p. 473: ‘Jevons’ hope of obtaining demand curves by statistical observation … may appear chimerical’. Contrast this with Marshall’s view that ‘as time goes on, the statistics of consumption will be so organised as to afford demand schedules sufficiently trustworthy’:
quoted by A. C. Pigou, Alfred Marshall and Current Thought (London: Macmillan, 1953) p. 25.
G. J. Stigler, Essays in the History of Economics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965) p. 246.
W. S. Jevons, The Theory of Political Economy, ed. by R. D. C. Black (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970). [Hereafter cited as TPE.]
Papers, II, p. 291. Unfortunately this method of writing the function led to some confusion: see J. Creedy, ‘Some Recent Interpretations of Mathematical Psychics’, History of Political Economy [hereafter cited as HOPE], 12 (1980) 267–76.
J. A. Schumpeter, Ten Great Economists (London: Allen & Unwin, 1952) p. 127.
A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (London: Macmillan, 1890) 9th (Variorum) edn, ed. C. W. Guillebaud (London: Macmillan, 1961) vol. II [hereafter cited as G.II] p. 844.
For a recent examination of the implications of additivity, see A. S. Deaton, ‘A Reconsideration of the Empirical Implications of Additive Preferences’, EJ, LXXXIV (1974) 338–48.
The first criticism came from W. E. Johnson, ‘The Pure Theory of Utility Curves’, EJ, XVIII (1913) 483–513,
followed by H. L. Schultz, ‘Interrelations of Demand’, JPE, XLI (1933) 468–512,
and R. G. D. Allen, ‘A Comparison of Different Definitions of Complementary and Competitive Goods’, Econometrica, II (1934) 168–75.
For further discussion, see P. A. Samuelson, ‘Complementarity: an Essay on the 40th Anniversary of the Hicks-Allen Revolution in Demand Theory’, Journal of Economic Literature, XII (1974) 1255–89,
and J. Chipman, ‘An Empirical Implication of Auspitz-Lieben-Edgeworth-Pareto Complementarity’, Journal of Economic Theory, XIV (1977) 228–31.
The conventional interpretation has recently been questioned by, for example, W. Jaffé, ‘Edgeworth’s Contract Curve: A Propadeutic Essay in Clarification’, HOPE, 6 (1974) 343–59. The box diagram in MP (p. 28) has the origin in the south-west corner because Edgeworth was concerned mainly with exchange. The modern emphasis on allocation of fixed amounts has led to the box being rotated by 90°. See also Creedy, op. cit.
This has recently been questioned by D. A. Walker, ‘Edgeworth’s Theory of Recontract’, EJ, LXXXIII (1973) 138–49, but see Creedy, op. cit.
For further details see M. Bacharach, Economics and the Theory of Games (London: Macmillan, 1976),
and W. Hildebrand and A. Kirman, General Equilibrium Analysis (Amsterdam: North Holland, 1976).
The seminal work is M. Schubik, ‘Edgeworth Market Games’, in R. D. Luce and A. W. Tucker (eds), Contributions to the Theory of Games, vol. IV (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1959).
See Edgeworth’s introduction in Papers, I, p. 111. Subsequent discussions have been divided into those concerned with wage bargaining, and those dealing with monopolised industries. The literature is too large to list here, but see A. J. Nichol, ‘Edgeworth’s Theory of Duopoly Price’, EJ, XLV (1935) 51–66,
and M. J. Farrell, ‘Edgeworth’s Bounds for Oligopoly Prices’, Economica, n.s., XLIX (1970) 341–61.
A. Marshall, Industry and Trade (London: Macmillan, 1919) p. 399.
From E. R. A. Seligman, Shifting and the Incidence of Taxation (New York: Macmillan, 1921) p. 214.
For a later judgement by Edgeworth of Seligman, see Papers, I, p. 93. For Wicksell’s treatment, see K. Wicksell, Selected Papers in Economic Theory, ed. by E. Lindahl (London: Allen & Unwin, 1958) p. 108 and Lectures on Political Economy, vol. I (London: Routledge, 1934) pp. 93–5.
See also W. Baumöl and S. M. Goldfeld (eds), Precursors in Mathematical Economics: An Anthology (London: London School of Economics, 1968) p. 190.
Papers, II, p. 102. The treatment clearly requires cardinality: see Papers, II, p. 475, and A. C. Pigou, A Study in Public Finance, 3rd rev. edn (London: Macmillan, 1947) p. 41. Schumpeter’s statement (History, p. 831) that ‘we can leave out the utilitarian from any of his economic writings without affecting their scientific content’ is either tautological or inaccurate.
See Papers, II, p. 105, which also includes his views of authority as ‘evidence’. A. P. Lerner in The Economics of Control (New York: Macmillan, 1947) later considered differing utility functions and ‘probabilistic egalitarianism’.
Pigou, a member of the 1920 Royal Commission, said ‘there can be no question that … least aggregate sacrifice is an ultimate principle of taxation’ (Public Finance, p. 43). For further references and discussion, see especially F. Shehab. Progressive Taxation: A Study in the Development of the Progressive Principle in the British Public Tax (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953),
and W. J. Blum and K. Kalven Jr, The Uneasy Case for Progressive Taxation (Chicago: Chicago University Press. 1953).
See E. S. Phelps (ed.), Economic Justice (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973) for references to this literature.
First noted in his taxation paper, in which he held that his argument depended on taxes in kind. See also Pigou, Public Finance, p. 180. This subject was treated at length in A. P. Lerner, ‘The Symmetry of Import and Export Taxes’, Economica, n.s., III (1936) 308–13.
Following J. Bhagwati, ‘Immiserizing Growth: A Geometric Note’, Review of Economic Studies, XXV (1958) 201–5.
He says only ‘By combining properly the utility curves for all the individuals, we obtain what may be called a collective utility curve’ (Papers, II, p. 293). See W. W. Leontieff, ‘The Use of Indifference Curves in the Analysis of Foreign Trade’, QJE, XLVII (1933) 493–503.
Papers, II, p. 32. F. Graham’s criticism is in ‘The Theory of International Values Re-examined’, QJE, XXXVII (1923) 54–86.
This is treated exhaustively by J. E. Meade, A Geometry of International Trade (London: Allen & Unwin, 1952).
It may be noted here that J. Viner. Studies in the Theory of International Trade (London: Allen & Unwin, 1964) p. 546. criticises Edgeworth’s diagram (in Papers, II, p. 32) for not including a straight line section in the offer curves to cover the case where the country does not trade. However, he does not realise that Edgeworth has simply shifted the origin, so that his axis refers to exports and imports rather than to the total output of ‘exportables’. Viner (op. cit., p. 547 n 24) also wrongly interprets ‘to generalise the theory’ as meaning to allow for non-constant returns to scale.
See C. F. Bikerdike, ‘The Theory of Incipient Taxes’, EJ, XVI (1906), and A. C. Pigou, Protective and Preferential Import Duties (London: Macmillan, 1908).
For a later treatment of retaliation see H. G. Johnson, ‘Optimum Tariffs and Retaliation’, Review of Economic Studies, XXI (1953) 142–53.
Bowley, Econometrica, loc. cit., p. 114. It would be interesting to know how, and ‘under what incentive’ (Kendall, op. cit., p. 258), Edgeworth learnt his mathematics. Bowley (op. cit., p. 113) is the only person to suggest even that ‘it may be presumed’ that he studied mathematics in Dublin. It is very hard to believe that he was trained; see also note 51. In discussion of S. M. Stigler (op. cit., p. 318), Eisenhart suggests that Edgeworth’s uncle (and grand-uncle!), Sir Francis Beaufort, may have had some influence, but this is doubtful. It is known that Edgeworth’s grandfather (Richard Lovell Edgeworth) enjoyed working out arithmetical problems, but his father (Francis Beaufort Edgeworth) hated mathematics (see Butler and Butler, op. cit., p. 247). On Edgeworth’s mathematics see also J. Creedy, ‘The Early Use of Lagrange Multipliers in Economies’, EJ, XC (1980) 371–76.
In G. J. Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (London: Macmillan, 1941).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1981 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Creedy, J. (1981). F. Y. Edgeworth, 1845–1926. In: O’Brien, D.P., Presley, J.R. (eds) Pioneers of Modern Economics in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06912-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06912-5_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-35840-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-06912-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)