Abstract
Throughout his long career as an economist, Copeland has proudly proclaimed his commitment to institutionalism.1 For this reason, and especially as a result of criticism of the theory and practice of orthodox economics that has flowed from his unswerving adherence to the natural science point of view, Copeland has never been fully accepted into the mainstream fold.2 Ironically, neither is Copeland fully recognized today as an institutionalist. Over the almost sixty years that he has practiced economics, the interpretation placed upon the term “institutionalist” has changed greatly, and this movement in American economic thought is less heterogeneous than in the 1920s and 1930s. To the uninitiated, and this includes most who practice economics, institutionalism means the thought of Ayres — when it is not simply confused with atheoretical, colorless descriptions of institutions or industries. But even many who style themselves institutionalists do not recognize Copeland as a member of the tribe.
The author would like to thank Chandler Morse, Malcolm Liggett, and John Adams for helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper.
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.
Endnotes
Note, for example, the subtitle of his collected papers: Chandler Morse, ed., Fact and Theory in Economics: The Testament of an Institutionalist, Collected Papers of Morris A. Copeland (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1958). Hereafter this work will be cited as Morse, Collected Papers.
The fact that he was elected president of the American Economic Association in 1957 represents an important qualification to this statement. He was also associated with the National Bureau of Economic Research during the period of its greatest influence: 1944–1959. What one perhaps ought to say is that Copeland has had a very successful career as an economist despite the reluctance of the orthodox to accept his criticisms.
Allan G. Gruchy, Modern Economic Thought ( New York: Prentice-Hall, 1947 ).
Allan G. Gruchy, Contemporary Economic Thought (Clifton, N.J.: Augustus M. Kelly, 1972 ).
I shall not deal with Copeland’s career in government service. He joined the New Deal as executive secretary of the Central Statistical Board in Washington, D.C., in 1933, became director of research for the Bureau of the Budget (1939–40), and served subsequently as chief of the munitions branch of the War Production Board, 1940–44. See Who’s Who in America, 1976–77, vol. 1 ( Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who, 1976 ), p. 654.
Gruchy, Modern Economic Thought, pp. 247–333.
Walter W. Stewart and John Maurice Clark were his teachers. In a recent letter to me, Copeland wrote: “The book by Mitchell I refer to much the most frequently is Business Cycles — The Problem and Its Setting. But it was not through what he wrote that he influenced me most. A number of times when I was in New York I went to call on him at his house on West Twelfth Street to ask his advice on things I was working on” (October 30, 1977 ).
Morris A. Copeland, “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Douglas F. Dowd, ed., Thorstein Vehlen: A Critical Reappraisal ( New York: Cornell University Press, 1958 ), p. 58.
Morris A. Copeland, Our Free Enterprise Economy (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 15–18. There is an interesting parallel between Copeland’s notion here and that developed by Karl Polanyi in his essay “The Economy as Instituted Process,” in George Dalton, ed., Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies (New York: Anchor Books, 1968), pp. 139–74. There are a number of very substantial methodological differences, however, between Copeland and Polanyi.
Copeland, “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Dowd, Thorstein Vehlen, p. 72.
Copeland, Our Free Enterprise Economy, p. 16 and note 1, p. 16.
Copeland, “Psychology and the Natural Science Point of View,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 12. Brackets added.
Copeland, Our Free Enterprise Economy, p. 289.
Copeland, “Institutional Economics and Model Analysis,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 54.
Copeland, “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Dowd, Thorstein Veblen, p. 69.
The role as pathologist arises from the institutionalist’s description of the “functions” of institutions: “‘Function’ in this sense is to be distinguished from purpose. The function of an organ, for example is a result that the observing scientist expects the organ ‘normally’ to bring about and in terms of which he appraises its behavior. It is not an end that guides or influences behavior.” Copeland, “Psychology and the Natural Science Point of View,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 19.
Copeland, “Economic Theory and the Natural Science Point of View,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 50.
Copeland, “Institutional Economics and Model Analysis,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 66.
Copeland, “Psychology and the Natural Science Point of View,” in Morse, Collected Papers, pp. 38–39.
The phrase is Copeland’s: “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Dowd, Thorstein Veblen, p. 61.
Copeland, “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Dowd, Thorstein Veblen, p. 64, note 12.
Copeland explicitly excluded indifference analysis as an “explanation” of heliotropism in, for example, sunflower “behavior” in a seminar on J. R. Hicks at Cornell sometime in the late 1950s.
“There are various senses for diminishing returns. In the sense in which universal validity can plausibly be claimed for this ‘law’ it would appear to be a proposition in physical science. But I am not aware that any physical scientist has claimed it to be a physical law.” “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Dowd, Thorstein Veblen, p. 61.
On this Copeland wrote in 1958: “Many economics texts written during the past decade, like their predecessors, offer as an ‘explanation’ of consumer demand a purportedly general theory of individual choice that is obviously a refinement of Bentham’s felicific calculus. It goes without saying that as a general theory it has no standing whatever among modern psychologists. Logically the economists who adhere to it should feel embarrassed, but somehow they do not seem to.” “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Dowd, Thorstein Veblen, p. 60.
Two essays have been published recently: Copeland, “Concerning the Origin of a Money Economy,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology (January 1974): 1–17; and Copeland, “Foreign Exchange in the 4th Century, B.C.,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology (April 1977): 205–16.
Morris A. Copeland, A Study of Money flows in the United States (New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1952) p. xiii.
See, for instance, the somewhat abbreviated version, Copeland, “The Equation of Exchange: An Empirical Analysis,” in Morse, Collected Papers, pp. 95–107.
Copeland, “Statistics and Objective Economics,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 75.
Technically speaking, Leontief’s input-output table is not closely related to the other three systems because it divides up business establishments by type of product and thus abstracts from actual economic transactions and business accounting records.
For a different conclusion see Don Patinkin, “Keynes and Econometrics,” Econometrica 44 (November 1976): 1091–1123.
For a description of the way the flow-of-funds accounts are currently set up, see “A Quarterly Presentation of the Flow of Funds, Saving, and Investment,” Federal Reserve Bulletin (August 1959):828; and “Revision of Flow of Funds Accounts,” Federal Reserve Bulletin (November 1965):1533.
This summary of implications of the hydraulic analogy is based upon Copeland’s “Note on the Quantity Theory,” in A Study of Money flows, pp. 367–79.
Copeland has supplied a diagram of the money circuit conceived as an electrical diagram to substitute for the standard circular flow diagram. It may be found on p. 245 of Copeland, A Study of Money flows. He also provided “a less technical and rather less precise alternative statement…” from which the following extracts have been taken (pp. 322–23)
Copeland, A Study of Money flows, pp. 237–38.
Copeland, “The Keynesian Reformation,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 328.
Morris A. Copeland, The Keynesian Reformation (Delhi: Ranjit Printers and Publishers, 1952 ).
Lawrence R. Klein, The Keynesian Revolution ( New York: Macmillan, 1947 ).
Copeland, “Institutional Economics and Model Analysis,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 59ff.
Copeland, “Statistics and Objective Economics,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 81.
Thorstein Veblen, Instinct of Workmanship ( New York: B. W. Hvebsch, 1918 ), pp. 326–27.
Copeland, “On the Scope and Method of Economics,” in Dowd, Thorstein Veblen, p. 64.
Copeland, “The Keynesian Reformation,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 330. Copeland goes on to say at a later point in the essay (p. 331)
Copeland, “Communities of Economic Interest and the Price System,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 228.
Copeland, Our Free Enterprise Economy, p. 60.
Copeland, Our Free Enterprise Economy, p. 58. Brackets added.
Wesley C. Mitchell, “Quantitative Analysis in Economic Theory,” in The Backward Art of Spending Money (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1937, especially pp. 23–26.
Copeland, “Institutional Economics and Model Analysis,” in Morse, Collected Papers, p. 58.
See Copeland’s discussions in “Institutional Economics and Model Analysis,” “Statistics and Objective Economics,” and “The Keynesian Reformation,” all in Morse, Collected Papers.
Copeland, Our Free Enterprise Economy, p. vii.
Lucy S. Mitchell, “A Personal Sketch,” in Arthur F. Burns, ed., Wesley Clair Mitchell: The Economic Scientist ( New York: NBER, 1952 ), pp. 95–96.
Copeland, “Psychology and the Natural Science Point of View,” in Morse, Collected Papers, pp. 35–36.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1980 Martinus Nijhoff Publishing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Millar, J.R. (1980). Institutionalism from a Natural Science Point of View. In: Adams, J. (eds) Institutional Economics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8736-4_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-8736-4_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-009-8738-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-8736-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive