IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wea/econth/v1y2012i1p3.html

Richard Cantillon's Early Monetary Views?

Author

Listed:
  • Richard van den Berg

Abstract

The monetary theories in Philip Cantillon's The Analysis of Trade (1759) differ in important respects from those found in Richard Cantillon's much more famous Essai sur la nature de Commerce en général (1759). Contrary to the received opinion that the Analysis was a poor translation of the Essai, it is argued in this paper that many of these differences are due to the fact that Philip based his book on an earlier draft of his cousin's great work. Comparisons between the two texts allow us to assess, for the first time, how Richard Cantillon's developed his ideas on the quantity theory of money, the price-specie-flow mechanism and the determination of the interest rate.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard van den Berg, 2012. "Richard Cantillon's Early Monetary Views?," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 1-3, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wea:econth:v:1:y:2012:i:1:p:3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/papers/richard-cantillons-early-monetary-views/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://et.worldeconomicsassociation.org/files/ETVandenBerg_1_1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frederic S. Lee, 2007. "The Research Assessment Exercise, the state and the dominance of mainstream economics in British universities," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 31(2), pages 309-325, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    2. Tae-Hee Jo & Zdravka Todorova, 2015. "Frederic S. Lee's contributions to heterodox economics," Working Papers PKWP1504, Post Keynesian Economics Society (PKES).
    3. Matthias Aistleitner & Jakob Kapeller & Stefan Steinerberger, 2018. "Citation Patterns in Economics and Beyond," Working Papers Series 85, Institute for New Economic Thinking.
    4. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    5. Heise, Arne, 2019. "Ideology and pluralism: A German view," ZÖSS-Discussion Papers 75, University of Hamburg, Centre for Economic and Sociological Studies (CESS/ZÖSS).
    6. Daniel Sgroi & Andrew J. Oswald, 2013. "How Should Peer‐review Panels Behave?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 255-278, August.
    7. Alberto Baccini & Giuseppe De Nicolao, 2016. "Do they agree? Bibliometric evaluation versus informed peer review in the Italian research assessment exercise," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1651-1671, September.
    8. Whitley, Richard, 2016. "Varieties of scientific knowledge and their contributions to dealing with policy problems: A response to Richard Nelson’s “The sciences are different and the differences matter”," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1702-1707.
    9. Marcella Corsi, 2017. "Note Bibliografiche: Rochon L.-P., Rossi S. (2017): A Modern Guide to Rethinking Economics; Jo T.-H., Chester L., D'Ippoliti C. (2017), The Routledge Handbook of Heterodox Economics. Theorizing, Analyzing, and Transforming Capitalism," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 70(280), pages 389-392.
    10. Ian Coelho de Souza Almeida & Rafael Galvão de Almeida & Lucas Resende de Carvalho, 2017. "Academic rankings and pluralism : the case of Brazil and the new version of Qualis," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG 569, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    11. Mark Palmer & Geoff Simmons, 2011. "On Becoming a Mediatizing Don and Claiming the New Spatial Boundaries of Academia," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(3), pages 509-514, March.
    12. Margit Osterloh & Bruno S. Frey, 2010. "Academic rankings and research governance," IEW - Working Papers 482, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    14. Marcella Corsi & Carlo D'Ippoliti & Federico Lucidi, 2011. "On the Evaluation of Economic Research: The Case of Italy," Economia politica, Società editrice il Mulino, issue 3, pages 369-402.
    15. Freeman, Alan, 2011. "Association for Heterodox Economics Submission to UK Science and Technology Parliamentary Select Committee on peer review," MPRA Paper 64702, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 Mar 2011.
    16. Jakob Kapeller & Stephan Puehringer & Christian Grimm, 2022. "Paradigms and policies: the state of economics in the German-speaking countries," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 1183-1210, July.
    17. Birolo, Adriano & Rosselli, Annalisa, 2009. "Research standards for the Italian young academics: what has changed over the last thirty years?," MPRA Paper 21368, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Musselin, Christine, 2013. "How peer review empowers the academic profession and university managers: Changes in relationships between the state, universities and the professoriate," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1165-1173.
    19. Andrea Cammelli, 2012. "Consolidamento ed eterogeneità nelle esperienze di studio dei laureati italiani," Working Papers 49, AlmaLaurea Inter-University Consortium.
    20. Ferenc Moksony & Rita Hegedűs & Melinda Császár, 2014. "Rankings, research styles, and publication cultures: a study of American sociology departments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1715-1729, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wea:econth:v:1:y:2012:i:1:p:3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Jake McMurchie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/worecea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.