Premium
Mill’S Affirmation of the Classical Wage Fund Doctrine
Author(s) -
Donoghue Mark
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
scottish journal of political economy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.4
H-Index - 46
eISSN - 1467-9485
pISSN - 0036-9292
DOI - 10.1111/1467-9485.00046
Subject(s) - mill , doctrine , context (archaeology) , wage , interpretation (philosophy) , economics , law , sociology , law and economics , economic history , political science , philosophy , history , archaeology , linguistics
Commentaries on Mill's 1 recantation have variously and loosely interpreted his retraction within an institutional context (Kurer, 1993), as a tract on policy reform (Schwartz, 1972, esp. pp. 68–69, 90–101; West and Hafer, 1978, 1981), as a calculated political act (Forget, 1992), as part of a scientific research programme (Vint, 1994, esp. pp. 1–7, 212–248), or as broadly revisionist (Hollander, 1968a, 1984, 1985, pp. 262–263, 409–417; Ekelund, 1976, 1985; Ekelund and Kordmeier, 1981; Negishi, 1985a, 1985b). Although these writers differ on many points of detail, they all agree that Mill explicitly and unconditionally abandoned the wage fund doctrine. What is striking here is that the ‘recantation interpretation’ has gone entirely unchallenged by historians of economics. In this paper we challenge received opinion on this point and argue that Mill in fact affirmed the doctrine in his Fortnightly Review article .