Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Methodology

  • Chapter
Lionel Robbins

  • 11 Accesses

Abstract

Robbins’s Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (ENSES)is one of the two most important methodological statements by any economist this century and the single most important until the appearance of Friedman’s classic essay.1 It is, then, instructive to examine the origins of this book which first appeared in 1932. It seems clear that the book originated in at least three different considerations. The first, as Robbins recounts in his Autobiography,was the need, as Robbins saw it, to reformulate economics in such a way that it could take account of non-materialwelfare and also of destructive activities which nevertheless were chosenand which used resources —principally, war. This was not a difficult step, given the marginal want-satisfaction of Wicksteed and the Austrians.2 But it was a fundamental departure from Cannan’s position, in which materialwelfare was given a central place, as Robbins was very much aware.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. Friedman (1953); Blaug (1980) p. 87; Stewart (1979) p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  2. (1971a) p. 146; see also (1953b) p. 104; (1935a) p. 129 (throughout the pagination of the second edition of ENSESwill be cited); (1929c) p. 249.

    Google Scholar 

  3. (1927a).

    Google Scholar 

  4. (1935a) pp. 147–8, 151.

    Google Scholar 

  5. (1938c) pp. 635–7; see also (1963a) pp. 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Young (1913); Robbins (1934a).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Preface to second edition of ENSES,(1935a) p. viii; (1963a) pp. 7–12; (1949a) p. 103; (1971a) pp. 147–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Baumol (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  9. (1938a).

    Google Scholar 

  10. (1930b) pp. 23–4.

    Google Scholar 

  11. (1947c) p. 54: ‘The economic problem is essentially a problem of regulating the quantities which go to different uses and securing some rough equality of yield at the margin. It is a problem not of priority but of allocation.’

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hutchison (1981) p. 189.

    Google Scholar 

  13. A better idea of Robbins’s sources can be obtained from the first edition of ENSESrather than from the more widely available second edition. In particular, seven of the Mises references in the first edition are missing from the second edition.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Blaug (1980) p. 87.

    Google Scholar 

  15. (1968a); (1981) pp. xiii, xxviii-xxix.

    Google Scholar 

  16. (1963a) pp. 12–19; (1981) p. xxii.

    Google Scholar 

  17. (1935a) pp. 74, 82, 96, 105; see also Blaug (1980) pp. 87–9; Mill (1825), (1844) pp. 25, 312, 314–17, 325, 329, 332.

    Google Scholar 

  18. (1981) p. xx; Jevons (1871) p. 85; Robbins (1934b) p. 95; (1953b) p. 108; (1933) p. xvi.

    Google Scholar 

  19. (1934b) p. 95; (1936a) pp. 6–7; (1970b) p. 176; see also Wicksteed (1910) pp. 766–7; Jevons (1871) pp. 84–6, 94–121; Blaug (1962) pp. 309, 334.

    Google Scholar 

  20. (1935a) pp. xii, xv–xvi, 55,96; (1970b) pp. 189–209 especially p. 209.

    Google Scholar 

  21. (1930d); Coase (1982) p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Robbins (1933) p. xiv.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Blaug (1962) p. 488.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wicksteed (1910) chs. 1, 2, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. (1935a) p. 55; Wicksteed (1910) pp. 212–400.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Robbins (1933) p. xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See especially Wicksteed (1910) Book III.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Weber (1949) p. 52; Robbins (1935a) p. 148; see also p. xii — when Souter (1933) attacked Robbins’s positivism, Robbins referred him to Weber. See also Kirzner (1976) p. 209 n.12 for Weber’s use of scarcity.

    Google Scholar 

  29. (1935a) pp. 90, 148; Weber (1949) pp. 1–47 especially p. 11; Hutchison (1979); Bendix (1968) p. 495.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Weber (1949) p. 162; see also Lachman (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  31. (1934d) p. 57; (1937b) p. 237; (1939a) pp. 128–30.

    Google Scholar 

  32. (1939b) pp. 52–3, 73n.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See especially (1930a); (1934a).

    Google Scholar 

  34. (1970b) pp. 210–14; (1933) p. xx.

    Google Scholar 

  35. In (1934c) Robbins refers to ‘goods of first order’ — cf. Menger (1871) pp. 92–109 and Wieser (1889) Books III and IV.

    Google Scholar 

  36. See Addleson (1984). See also Knight (1934) p. 661 (who identified Wicksteed with the Austrians) and Hicks (1979) p. 358.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Robbins has indeed been criticised by some of the modern ‘Austrians’ but as Hutchison has shown, the correspondence of modern ‘Austrians’ with the older Austrians is less than complete (1981) pp. 187–9. See also Kirzner (1976) p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  38. (1935a) pp. xv–xvi. See also (1930b) and Addleson (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  39. (1935a) p. 77n; (1971a) p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  40. (1935a) pp. 16, 18, 39, 54, 77, 78, 83, 89. Most of the references in (1935a) are to Mises’s Gemeinwirtschaft(1932) which was translated as Socialism.See also (1930b).

    Google Scholar 

  41. (1935a) p. 83.

    Google Scholar 

  42. (1935a) p. 145.

    Google Scholar 

  43. The contrast is evident in the discussion of Kirzner (1976) pp. 159–63; see also Stewart (1979) p. 154. On Mises’s a priorismsee also Rothbard (1968); Mises (1949) pp. 31, 55,350–7.

    Google Scholar 

  44. (1971a) p. 16. The famous definition refers to Menger, Mises, Fetter, Strigl and Mayer.

    Google Scholar 

  45. (1935a) p. 96; (1934a); (1933) p. xvi; (1981) p. xiii; see also Addleson (1984); Hutchison (1981) pp. 187–9. But there is an important question here, raised by Wiseman (1985); the later Austrians, such as Mayer, emphasised a more passive form of subjectivism than had Menger and Wieser — the consumer now responded, computationally, to data. It is an open question how far Robbins himself accepted this shift of emphasis though the present writer believes that, for the most part, he did do so.

    Google Scholar 

  46. (1935a) p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  47. (1935a) p. 16. See also Hutchison (1981) p. 226n.

    Google Scholar 

  48. (1930d) p. 257. The work which has never been translated into English is Schumpeter (1908). Pp. 521–626 of it deal with methodological questions and the role of pure theory. See also Lachman (1976); Hutchison (1981) p. 205; Kirzner (1976) pp. 68–70.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Menger (1871) pp. 58–9, 129–30; Wieser (1889) p. 176.

    Google Scholar 

  50. (1935a) pp. 67–8. But Robbins later became much more critical of the Austrians — see (1966f).

    Google Scholar 

  51. (1935a) pp. 55, 67; Wicksteed (1910) pp. 212–400; Robbins (1933) p. xvi; (1934a) pp. 11, 14–15; (1930a); see also J. M. Buchanan (1973).

    Google Scholar 

  52. See especially (1934c) p. 465. There are also general equilibrium considerations in (1927b) pp. 124–9 — labour-saving inventions may indicate a larger rather than a small optimum population, in contrast to the partial equilibrium conclusions derived from looking at individual industries.

    Google Scholar 

  53. (1971a) p. 160 (‘the the-industry fallacy’); (1954) pp. 201–25; (1947c).

    Google Scholar 

  54. (1934a).

    Google Scholar 

  55. (1929a); (1930c).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kirzner (1974) pp. 38, 94–6, 147–8. See also note 45 above.

    Google Scholar 

  57. (1939a) p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  58. (1930d) p. 257.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J. M. Buchanan (1968) p. 425.

    Google Scholar 

  60. J. M. Buchanan (1968) p. 426 sees Knight as the economist as philosopher rather than scientist. However, both Knight and Robbins (1957e) p. 399, agreed that economics differed from natural science because people learn.

    Google Scholar 

  61. (1935a) pp. 16,83.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Young (1925b).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cannan (1914) ch. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  64. (1971a) p. 105. See also (1926c).

    Google Scholar 

  65. (1971a) p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  66. (1935a) pp. 20, 87, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cassel (1925) pp. 28–9.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Cassel (1925) pp. 30–1, 46–7.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cassel (1925) pp. 88–9.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Wicksteed (1910) p. 766.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Robbins (1932a) p. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Addleson (1984) p. 520; Blaug (1980) p. 90; see also Stewart (1979) pp. 121–6; Hicks (1983). Cooter and Rappoport (1984) p. 521 assert that ‘much of Robbins’s argument was anticipated by Frederic Benham (1930)’. Benham’s article is certainly valuable, and it is indeed unfortunate that it should have been so completely overshadowed by ENSESas to become more or less completely forgotten. However the limited content of Benham’s short article, the wealth of other sources on which Robbins drew, and had been drawing for some time before the appearance of Benham’s paper, the nature of Robbins’s 1927 review of Hawtrey — which in fact Benham acknowledged (p. 174n) as making his central point — and Robbins’s own account of the genesis of ENSES(1971a pp. 146–7) all combine to make Benham an unlikely source, particularly as he went so far as to reject the subjective elements in value theory and to describe (p. 187) marginal utility as a ‘question-begging term’ — Robbins in ENSES(1935a) pp. 20, 87, 88 was to be critical of similar elements in Cassel’s work.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Cannan (1932).

    Google Scholar 

  74. (1914) ch. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  75. (1935a) pp. 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Beveridge (1937).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Knight (1934a) p. 225n. Other reviews are by James (1933) who regarded the work as ‘too metaphysical and subjective’ and by Peck (1936) who argued that the book represented an outdated individualism. See also Kaufman (1933), who criticises Robbins by implication.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Souter (1933).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Parsons (1934) p. 516.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Parsons (1934) p. 515.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Parsons (1934) p. 516.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Harrod (1938).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Robbins (1938c); see also (1938a).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Fraser (1932) p. 558.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Fraser (1932) pp. 566, 569.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Robbins (1935a) p. viii. See also (1939d) p. 295. It is rather puzzling that Robbins seems neither to have reviewed nor referred to Hutchison (1938) which Wiseman (1985) p. 149 refers to as a ‘point by point critique’ of ENSES.The review by Pirou (1936) was sufficiently non-committal, though it recognised the importance of the work, to make reply unnecessary.

    Google Scholar 

  87. (1935a) p. 1; see also (1959) pp. 32–5.

    Google Scholar 

  88. (1934a) p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  89. See Meade (1984) on Robbins’s Oxford lectures.

    Google Scholar 

  90. (1935a) pp. 2–3; (1930b) pp. 16, 24; (1930a) p. 194; see also Hutchison (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  91. (1949a).

    Google Scholar 

  92. (1927a); see also (1935a) p. 91; Weber (1949) p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  93. (1935a) p. 151; (1927a) p. 177.

    Google Scholar 

  94. (1963a) pp. 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  95. (1976a) pp. 2–3 and n.

    Google Scholar 

  96. (1938c) p. 638; (1934c) p. 464–5; (1971a) pp. 147–8; (1935a) p. 87; (1939a) p. 164; (1959) p. 45; (1932d) pp. 173–4; (1953b) pp. 107–8.

    Google Scholar 

  97. (1935a) pp. 88–90, 106; (1981) p. xviii; (1963a) pp. 6–7, 19; (1938c) p. 639; (1927a); (1971a) pp. 147–8; Hutchison (1964) pp. 18–19; Weber (1949) p. 52; Menger (1883) p. 46; Kirzner (1976) p. 137; see also Mill’s science/art distinction (1844) p. 312.

    Google Scholar 

  98. (1934b) p. 100.

    Google Scholar 

  99. (1935a) pp. 4–6; (1953b) p. 104; see also Hutchison (1964) p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  100. (1935a) p. 96. See also (1926c) pp. 224–5 for a defence of Robinson Crusoe methodology.

    Google Scholar 

  101. (1934b) p. 100; (1935a) pp. 90–4.

    Google Scholar 

  102. (1935a) pp. 92–4; cf. Mises (1949) p. 103 and n; Wicksteed (1910) pp. 32–4.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Wicksteed (1910) pp. 75, 212–65; Wieser (1889) Bk I; Robbins (1935a) p. 56 citing Menger.

    Google Scholar 

  104. For example (1932a) p. 56 (omitted from 1935a p. 56); (1935a) p. 93; Mises (1932) p. 93; Robbins (1934) p. 41; (1936) pp. 113–22; (1953b) pp. 102–4.

    Google Scholar 

  105. (1953b) pp. 103–4. However Robbins introduced elements of cardinality by recognising degrees of difference — see Robertson (1954) pp. 668, 677 and (1955).

    Google Scholar 

  106. (1935a) pp. 7, 12, 14, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  107. (1935a) pp. 16, 30, 152–3; (1930b) p. 24; (1954) pp. 201–25; (1934c) p. 465; see also Menger (1871a) pp. 52–3, (1871b) pp. 94–5.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Robbins (1935a) pp. 87–8; (1971a) p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  109. (1935a) pp. 32, 67–8, 70–1, 73, 76–7;(1971a) p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  110. J. S. Mill could be oneof the sources for this distinction (1844) pp. 314–17.However Weber is the main source — (1949) p. 162 and cf. Robbins (1934c) p. 465.

    Google Scholar 

  111. (1935a) p. 16; (1963a) p. 28. Cf. Weber (1949) p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  112. (1935a) p. 24. See also (1931e) p. 470.

    Google Scholar 

  113. (1935a) pp. 24–5, 30, 145; see also Blaug (1980) p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  114. (1974b) pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  115. (1938c) p. 638.

    Google Scholar 

  116. (1954) pp. 201–2; cf. Mises (1933) p. 89: ‘Wenn jemand für nationale Autarkie eintritt, sein Volk vom Verkehr mit den übringen Völkern abschliessen will und bereit ist, alle materiellen und ideellen Folgen solcher Politik zu tragen, um das angestrebte Ziel zu erreichen, dann ist das eine Wertung, die man als solch mit Argumenten nicht zu widerlegen vermag.’

    Google Scholar 

  117. (1963a) p. 22.

    Google Scholar 

  118. (1971a) p. 147; (1935a) p. 31 citing Wicksteed (1910) pp. 155–7; (1939b) pp. 116–17; cf. Wieser (1914) p. 5; Weber (1949) pp. 67–8. Fraser (1932) p. 557 charged that Robbins had in fact smuggled in an economic endin the form of rational, maximising behaviour, only to concede this on p. 141 (1932a) and p. 157 of (1935a).

    Google Scholar 

  119. (1971a) p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  120. (1935a) pp. 73–5, 78, 104–6; (1938a) pp. 347–9; (1971a) p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Mises (1933), (1949). The whole tone of Wieser (1889) is a priori.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Blaug (1962) pp. 697–8; see also Stewart (1979) pp. 118–23 for a discussion of a priorism.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Mill (1844) p. 325.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Cairnes (1875) pp. 5–6,48.

    Google Scholar 

  125. See in particular Hicks (1935), Lavington (1921) pp. 29–35 cited by Robbins (1935a) p. 78. It is ironic that one reviewer of the first edition of ENSES(James 1933) interpreted the book to be an attack on the English methodological tradition.

    Google Scholar 

  126. On the verstehendoctrine see Blaug (1980) pp. 47–9 and (in relation to Robbins) p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  127. (1935a) pp. 89, 104–5; Cairnes (1875) pp. 75–6; Mill (1844) p. 329; see also Wieser (1914) pp. 4, 8; Hutchison (1981) p. 227n.

    Google Scholar 

  128. (1935a) pp. 73–5.

    Google Scholar 

  129. (1935a) p. 140; (1938c) p. 637.

    Google Scholar 

  130. (1935a) pp. 106–9, 132; (1981) p. xvi; (1938a) pp. 349–51; see also (1930d) p. 258; (1929b) p. 82; (1972a) p. 134; Addleson (1984) p. 517.

    Google Scholar 

  131. (1957e) p. 399; (1981) pp. xvi–xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  132. (1935a) p. 109.

    Google Scholar 

  133. See in particular Learner (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  134. (1935a) pp. 131–5.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Lipsey (1963) pp. 158–61.

    Google Scholar 

  136. See Stewart (1979) pp. 50–69; Lakatos and Musgrave (1970) pp. 91–132.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Popper (1934) pp. 252–4.

    Google Scholar 

  138. (1935a) pp. 73–5. Fraser, whose critique has recently been endorsed by Cooter and Rappoport (1984) believed not only that induction was necessary (1932 pp. 564–5) but that ‘The certainty of many of the best attested laws of physics is rather a matter of high inductive probability than of necessity.’ (1932 p. 560).

    Google Scholar 

  139. Robbins (1928a) pp. 390–1.

    Google Scholar 

  140. (1935a) p. 111; (1971a) p. 149; (1966b) p. 27; (1979a) p. 81; (1971b) pp. 149, 166; (1963a) p. 162; cf. Mises (1949) pp. 55–6; Cairnes (1875) pp. 115–16.

    Google Scholar 

  141. (1935a) p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  142. (1981) p. xvii.

    Google Scholar 

  143. (1935a) p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  144. (1935a) p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  145. (1935a) pp. 114–15. (1938a) is however less overtly hostile to empirical work. Fraser (1932 p. 565n) accused Robbins of unfairness to the Institutionalists — unfortunately supporting his claim with a reference which is clearly inaccurate.

    Google Scholar 

  146. (1981) p. xvii; (1934b) p. 99.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Beveridge (1937) p. 467.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Beveridge (1937) p. 464.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Beveridge (1937) pp. 463, 465.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Robbins (1938b) pp. 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  151. Robbins (1928b) p. 250; Young (1925a) pp. 240–5, 250–9. Robbins (1938b) which is relevant here is translated in an Appendix to this volume.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Robbins (1938b) pp. 18–19.

    Google Scholar 

  153. (1935a) pp. 56–7.

    Google Scholar 

  154. In his famous article on the elasticity of demand for income in terms of effort Robbins, having established that it was not possible to decide from a priorireasoning whether the individual supply curve of labour was positively or negatively sloped, concluded that ‘any attempt to predict the effect of change in the terms on which income is earned must proceed by inductive investigation of elasticities. The attempt to narrow the limit of possible elasticities by a priorireasoning must be held to have broken down.’ (1930c) p. 129. See also, on observation (1930b) pp. 20–1.

    Google Scholar 

  155. (1937a); (1959) p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  156. (1934d) has a substantial Appendix (pp. 201–38) containing 36 statistical tables.

    Google Scholar 

  157. (1970b) p. 80.

    Google Scholar 

  158. Peston (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  159. Blaug (1980) p. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  160. (1935a) pp. 116–19 (and cf. 1959 p. 44); (1937a); (1934c) p. 465; (1971b) pp. 188–9; (1938a) p. 352.

    Google Scholar 

  161. (1938b) p. 161.

    Google Scholar 

  162. Cairnes (1875) p. 85; Weber (1949) p. 148; Mises (1960) pp. 86–8. See also Mill (1844) pp. 326–30.

    Google Scholar 

  163. (1963a) p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  164. (1971a) pp. 149–50; cf. (1932b) p. 428 and p. 429; (1934d) contains elements of ‘verification’ and ‘testing’ though Henderson (1935) saw it as engaging in ‘verification’.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Cairnes (1875) pp. 91–2 and cf. pp. 150–1.

    Google Scholar 

  166. (1939b). This was perceived by one contemporary reviewer — Staley (1939).

    Google Scholar 

  167. (1932b) especially p. 428.

    Google Scholar 

  168. (1981) pp. xiv–xv; (1939b) p. 121; (1932b) pp. 428–9.

    Google Scholar 

  169. (1959) pp. 43–4. This seems to have confused some later commentators who regarded Robbins as having adopted a Popperian position — see in particular Peston (1981) pp. 185–6; see also Lipsey (1963) p. 158n.

    Google Scholar 

  170. (1929b) p. 73; (1929a) p. 27. See also Hutchison (1938) p. 106 for criticism of this.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Notes 127, 132, 152 above. This is again consistent with the work of Cairnes and some of the Austrians — see Cairnes (1875) pp. 77,108–9; Mises (1949) p. 31; and contrast Hutchison (1981) pp. 187–9 (on Menger), 203–4 (on Böhm-Bawerk) and 205 (on Wieser).

    Google Scholar 

  172. (1963a) p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  173. (1932a) p. 81. This was however omitted in the second edition of ENSES(1935a). Mises (1949) pp. 350–2. See also Lachman (1976) and Cairnes (1875) pp. v–vii.

    Google Scholar 

  174. (1971a) p. 118.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Samuelson (1972) p. 8; Baumol (1972) pp. 14–15; see also Baumol and Seller (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  176. (1935a) pp. 83–6; (1934b) especially pp. 95, 98–9; see also (1927a) p. 175.

    Google Scholar 

  177. (1934b) pp. 97–8; see also (1953b) p. 102. Behaviourism could not cope with expectations and analyse speculation. Moreover it was necessary to be able to contrast plans and realisations.

    Google Scholar 

  178. (1981) pp. xiv–xv.

    Google Scholar 

  179. The reference is to Young (1925a).

    Google Scholar 

  180. (1975a) p. ix.

    Google Scholar 

  181. (1947c) pp. 20–2, 85; (1963a) p. 112; (1976a) p. 21.

    Google Scholar 

  182. Koot (1982) especially p. 16; see also Coase (1982) p. 33.

    Google Scholar 

  183. See also the preface to the second edition of ENSES — (1935a) p. vii, and (1932b) pp. 420–1.

    Google Scholar 

  184. (1963a) pp. 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  185. (1935a) pp. 140–1.

    Google Scholar 

  186. (1938c) p. 646; (1971a) p. 148.

    Google Scholar 

  187. (1953b) pp. 108–9; (1970b) p. 204; Wicksteed (1910) pp. 777–8; Mises (1936) p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  188. (1938c) p. 635; (1935a) p. 140; (1932b) pp. 420–1; see also (1934a) p. 10; (1935a) p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  189. (1938c) p. 635.

    Google Scholar 

  190. (1935a) pp. 142–3.

    Google Scholar 

  191. (1981) p. xxiii.

    Google Scholar 

  192. (1971a) p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  193. Lipsey (1963) p. xiii.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Baumol (1984a) p. vii.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Durham, UK

    D. P. O’Brien (Professor of Economics)

Authors
  1. D. P. O’Brien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 1988 D. P. O’Brien

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Brien, D.P. (1988). Methodology. In: Lionel Robbins. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09683-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation