The Spread of Political Economy and the Professionalisation of Economists

Massimo Augello, Marco Guidi, Massimo Augello, Marco Guidi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2001
• ISBN:
  9781134561643
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

This book expertly presents the first systematic research and comparative analysis ever attempted on the rise and early developments of the Economic Associations founded in Europe, the US and Japan during the nineteenth century. Contributors analyze the activities and debates promoted by these associations, evaluating their role in: the disseminati

1 Nineteenth-century economic societies in a comparative approach

The emergence of professional economists

Massimo M.Augello and Marco E.L.Guidi^*

A well-established tradition of studies has clarified that the rise and evolution of national economic societies in the nineteenth century¹ is not an issue that can be dismissed as simply a form of historical erudition. Rather, it involves crucial aspects of the history of modern economics: the academic institutionalisation of political economy,² the professionalisation of economists, the origins of specialist economic journals,³ the international circulation of ideas and the relations between economists, politics and public opinion. It is not necessary to make a leap of faith and proclaim belief in Kuhnian and Rortyan epistemology in order to underline that knowledge of these institutional developments, which shaped the dialogic relations between economists and their scientific community, is often of vital importance for an understanding of the evolution of economics and the success or failure of rival paradigms within this field.

So far, however, there has been considerably less awareness that political economy, since its scientific origins, has been characterised not only by analytical rigour and theoretical consistency but also by a strong pedagogic and popularising commitment (see Steiner 1998), embodying an implicit desire to win over the consciences of those active in the ‘public sphere’ (Habermas 1989), in order to fulfil its own nature as a ‘political’ science. Such a science could continue to be ‘a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator’ (Smith 1976:500), provided it was recognised that it was none other than ‘the study […] of the nature and functions of the different parts of the social body’ (Say 1843:1). It is thus hardly surprising that the enthusiastic nineteenth-century acolytes of political economy felt the need to found clubs and societies in which, through debate with politicians, journalists and businessmen, they could convey the message of reform that was part and parcel of this new science. In this perspective, the economic associations were but one of the tools singled out by nineteenth-century economists to educate public opinion and the world of politics—together with pamphlets, journals and the many ‘catechisms of political economy’ which in that period abounded.

This book presents a series of studies on the first economic societies that arose in nineteenth-century Europe, America and Japan, investigating the motives that inspired their founders and organisers, the activities undertaken, and the reasons for their success and for their decline. This introductory essay aims to provide a tentative overview of the phenomenon of associations among economists and offers an international comparison outlining the historical meaning of the experiences described, the analogies and differences between the various models, and finally the effects of the associations on the development of economic studies. In this context, the much-discussed theme of the birth of the professional figure of the economist forms a natural focus of investigation. Section 1 analyses some historiographic problems that come to the fore when considering the nature and goals of the early economic societies. Section 2 is devoted to the direct antecedents of the first debating societies that held gatherings explicitly in the name of political economy. Section 3 is devoted to the numerous societies that were set up in various countries, starting from the Political Economy Club (founded in London in 1821) and the Paris Société d’Economie Politique (founded in 1842), the main aim of which was to disseminate Smithian political economy and its laissez-faire implications; both of these societies became models that were widely imitated in other countries. Finally, Section 4 concentrates on the origins and the first activities of the economic associations set up in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. These associations were formed to pursue the aims of social reform, to promote positive study of economic events and policies or to support the establishment of scientific journals. Some of these societies would in the following century become an essential component of the scientific community of economists and of their scientific identity.

1 Economic societies, the spread of political economy and professionalisation: preliminary remarks

The studies by Bob Coats on the British Economic Association (hereafter: BEA) and the American Economic Association (hereafter: AEA) represent the benchmark of investigation in this field, by virtue of their wealth of documentation and the breadth of their interpretative framework. These studies form part of a more extensive inquiry into the institutionalisation of political economy and the professionalisation of the economist. According to Coats, the rise of the economics profession was a long drawn-out and ambiguous process, whose main precondition was the existence of a specialist training which aspiring economists should receive. It is therefore evident that the emergence of professional economists depended above all on the progress of the institutionalisation of political economy in universities. However, Coats argues that the foundation of economic associations in the closing decades of the nineteenth century—together with the creation of specialised journals—likewise constituted a precondition of professionalisation (Coats 1991).

One query that arises spontaneously for those who seek to enquire more closely into the history of economic societies in the nineteenth century is whether the link between the rise of these societies and the phenomenon of the professionalisation of economics is legitimate and heuristically fertile. For instance, the paper by Keith Tribe in the present collection voices a number of doubts that deserve attention. Tribe suggests that the connection between economic societies and professionalisation may contain certain interpretative limitations. Firstly, it may be flawed by a retrospective bias which takes for granted that societies still in existence today and now characterised by ‘quasi-professional status’ must necessarily have been set up with characteristics and aims analogous to those of today. Secondly, the introduction of a conceptual line of demarcation between ‘pre-professional’ debating societies such as the Political Economy Club and the first ‘professional’ societies towards the end of the century could prove to be artificial. But there are, in Tribe’s view, two rather more substantial reasons for casting doubt on the approach of professionalisation: on the one hand, it cannot automatically be taken as given that the founders of the first economic societies had in mind the same notion of ‘economist’ as that which prevails today; on the other, the modern sociological notion of ‘professionalisation’—which has in turn given rise to a consolidated historiographic tradition in different fields (see Burrage and Torstendahl 1990; Malatesta 1995)—can only with some difficulty be adapted to the identity of the economist.

Let us start with the latter point. The notion of professionalisation, which has been applied to categories such as lawyers, physicians, engineers, etc., is grounded on the assumption that the birth of a profession involves certain typical stepping stones: most crucially, the establishment of public regulations for access to professional status (educational qualifications and admission only upon approval by independent professional associations);⁴ and secondly the practice for the state to delegate ‘public’ tasks to the body of ‘professionals’, to be performed either privately or in state-run organisations. It can readily be seen that such characteristics are still absent from the ‘profession’ of the economist even today, whether the profession is practised in a university environment, in private organisations or in public agencies. Granted, common features do exist: economists are awarded professional recognition through a mechanism of cooptation based on examinations, and their assessment is carried out mainly by academic economists, who also represent the central nucleus of economic societies. Furthermore, the academic profession of the economist is regarded as a ‘public service’ in which insiders have a virtually exclusive right to select the outsiders. However, not only have economic associations never sought to acquire legal power of selection of the ‘professionals’ of the field, but also—as Coats himself has pointed out (1993:399)—there exists no specific educational qualification (like the Ph.D) that constitutes a prerequisite for recruitment of economists to public and private organisations (only the regulations for access to university posts generally impose more rigid criteria).

Such limitations could simply be taken as indicating that the professionalisation of economists is still incomplete at the present time, or alterna-tively that there are perhaps more deep-seated reasons why it cannot proceed beyond a certain limit. It is worth pointing out, first of all, that there is a looser meaning of ‘profession’ which does appear more suited to the concept of the professionalisation of economics: this is the meaning Coats tends to fall back on when contending with the above-described difficulties. This meaning is particularly evident in the adjective ‘professional’ as opposed to ‘amateur’ (Coats 1993:403). According to the far less sophisticated definition used by Stigler, the two essential prerequisites of the economics profession should be seen as ‘specialization’ and ‘persistence’, i.e. ‘continued application to this defined area’ (Stigler 1965:32). For Stigler this means that ‘it is difficult to be a professional outside, and easy to be one inside, the field of one’s livelihood’ (Stigler 1965:32). In addition to these criteria, Coats places emphasis on specialistic training. Doubts can certainly be cast on the legitimacy of using the accepted notion of ‘profession’, yet one of its merits resides precisely in highlighting the fact that application of the sociological notion of ‘professionalisation’ to a learned or scientific profession may be misleading in part.

Indeed, in the case of the profession of economics (and in particular that of the academic economist), the term that best expresses the aims pursued in recruitment of outsiders is not ‘professionalism’ or ‘competence’ but ‘scientific quality’. For what is at stake is no less than the admissibility of the candidate to the scientific community of economists. In this regard, modern economic societies have mirrored the function of universities and played a by no means purely subsidiary role: by offering scholars the opportunity to present and discuss the results of their research, they have controlled and sanctioned the scientific quality of their members. To this end they have often adopted a screening criterion for enrolment of members or—if a deliberate policy of broader-based membership is pursued—for choice of members to be appointed to official boards. The screening mechanisms have quite naturally been those in use in the academic world.⁵ Professionalisation is thus also a quest for more rigorous scientific standards among economists.

These reflections now allow us more easily to set in a historical perspective the phenomenon of economic societies established in the nineteenth century. We may begin by agreeing with Tribe’s concern that the ‘professional’ function of economic associations has not always been an intrinsic feature of their existence, and that the terms ‘pre-professional’ and ‘professional’ societies do not provide a correct key to understanding their development. It thus becomes important to engage in painstaking reconstruction of contextual history in order to study the nature and functions attributed to these associations in different periods of history, the activities they undertook and the different aspects of the economic discourse that arose within them. At the same time, however, the question as to when and to what extent the economic societies of the nineteenth century established the premises for the growth of the ‘professional’ identity of the economist must certainly be addressed. The evidence provided by this collection reveals that most of these societies strengthened this identity not only through scientific meetings but also by enhancing the profile of academic economists, favouring the institutionalisation of political economy, contributing to building up the ‘professional ideology’ of economists, etc. The fact that the professional self-awareness of economists did not assume its present-day character until the mid-twentieth century by no means excludes the hypothesis that the premises for this situation may have been laid long before, partly within the framework of economic societies. This may at times have come about as the unintentional consequences of choices made for quite different reasons (prestige, objectivity, pluralism, authoritativeness) At other times, it may have been the result of the conscious and far-sighted commitment of some economists, who regarded the societies both as a tool to reinforce the scientific nature of political economy and to favour the professionalisation of the economist.

In a nutshell, while it may be questionable to attribute the nature of professional societies across the board to all economic societies of the nineteenth century, yet it is unquestionable that in very many cases these associations did favour the rise of the ‘professional’ profile of the economist. This is not to deny that profound differences can be found among the various national patterns towards professionalisation. Thus in some cases—for instance England, Sweden or Portugal—the delayed institutionalisation of political economy ruled out any possibility of a professional function of the economic societies, while in other cases—the USA, Germany, Italy or Japan—the inter-relations between economic associations and professionalisation are as evident as they are diverse; in yet other cases—France, Belgium, Spain—the dissociation between institutionalisation and the history of associations can be attributed to a number of different causes.

Whatever the reasons, the comparative perspective adopted here allows the overall statement that the history of the economic societies of the nineteenth century is a phenomenon that cannot be restricted to the question of professionalisation. In the nineteenth century the ‘spirit of association’ was one of the ideals shared by all those who found the scientific and modernising language of political economy highly persuasive: scholars, politicians, journalists, businessmen, educators—and this list could be extended, testifying to the very broad appeal of these societies. The founders of economic societies wished to create a forum for debate not only on the theoretical aspects but also, and above all, on the means by which economics could illuminate the political and social issues of the day. Economists sought to spread their ideas through the daily press and cultural and scientific journals, and they engaged in a veritable apostolate vis-à-vis the politicians (who were largely involved in the movement), urging those in power to endorse the conclusions that seemed to spring naturally from scientific analysis. How to achieve the proper balance between the scientific dimension on the one hand and the practical orientation on the other was an issue that consistently formed the crux of heated debate and out-and-out battles. But for all the members of these societies the ‘spirit of association’ was a necessary component part of the political-economic discourse. It is precisely this aspect that makes them into such a thought-provoking object of study, because it leads the enquiring mind directly into the very heart of political economy, opening up fascinating vistas into the reasons for its ambivalent yet alluring success in contemporary society.

In other words, while the history of economic associations cannot disregard themes and issues forming part of sociological history, it must at the same time maintain close contact with the analysis of economic idioms.

2 Enlightenment, patriotism and progress: economic associations at the outset of the nineteenth century

The first associations or academies to bear the adjective ‘economic’ in their denomination or goals were set up in the mid-eighteenth century in the major centres of Europe, as a direct result of Enlightenment culture. The Dublin Society for Improving Husbandry, Manufactures and other Useful Arts (1731), the Accademia Economico-Agraria dei Georgofili (founded in Florence in 1753) and the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (inaugurated in London in 1754) represented the first manifestations of a new zeal for the development of manufacturing arts and agriculture as well as for the reform of economic legislation that soon gained popularity among European cultured elites.⁶ The model chosen by the Georgofili—soon followed by further experiences in Milan, Turin and other Italian cities—was that of the scientific academies which had flourished since the seventeenth century, whose members were predominantly drawn from the more illuminated sectors of the aristocracy that hoped to play a vital role in the reform policies set in motion by the European courts. The novelty was represented by the new object on which members were urged to focus when presenting their memoirs and debating. A similar model was followed in France, where the Société Royales d’Agriculture began to spread starting from 1757 (Roche 1978), and then in the Swiss Canton of Berne, where the Ökonomische Gesellschaft—which would become famous for its competitions that mobilised the cream of European scholar...