Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Set up, electrotyped, and printed by the Vail-Ballou Press, Inc., Binghamton, N. Y.

Paper furnished by W. F. Etherington & Co., New York.
Bound by the H. Wolf Estate, New York.

MANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

INTRODUCTION

The first suggestion for this book had its origin in my own feeling that coöperation in economic theory could and ought to be made more genuine; and that a first step in this direction could best be made by each of us whose chief efforts lie in this field setting himself the task of saying quite definitely what seemed to him to be the main lines of development and expressing his opinion as to their fruitfulness. Then, at least, if we could not coöperate, we should know quite clearly why. The response to this suggestion, first made to the contributors here who happened to be present at the meeting of the American Economic Association in Chicago in December of 1922, was so considerable that it soon grew into a definite project of formulation and publication, the final form of which is presented here.

We have desired to make a book which should be useful especially to students of economics; but also, in lesser measure, to all persons who have an interest in the development of economic society. Students of economics who feel it important for their purposes to know the attitudes of any of the contributors toward the problems of economics and the methods of economic research ought not to have to look further. What each of us thinks is formulated here. But also there has been another purpose than that of setting down our personal attitudes. Each contributor has dedicated his career to economic study; and as a consequence of this, or perhaps as a precondition of such a dedication, he is one who has close to his heart the good of industrialism and the good of industrial theory. And this has seemed preeminently the place to plead for the truth he has come by, concerning (1) what the trend of economic science is, (2) what it seems to him that it ought to be, and (3) what contribution his own theory makes.

This explains somewhat the character of the book and, I hope, forestalls certain criticisms that may be made concerning repetitiousness. For it seemed much more important to get honest, and, indeed, passionate opinion, than to get a great covering of territory. If each of us found that certain problems could be said to be of supreme importance, and if, in some measure, many of us agreed upon which they were, that ought to be a valuable discovery in the sense that it must certainly lead to a greater concentration of effort upon their

solutions. If we further agreed upon the method of attack, that would be a still greater gain. And if, even beyond that, we succeeded in defining certain common goals, that might be the greatest benefit of all. It has been a great joy to me to see, in the finished manuscripts, how these hopes of my own have been measurably fulfilled, and where they have not, how clearly attitudes which run counter to main trends have been expressed.

Each contributor was asked plainly and briefly to write out what he had upon his mind concerning economics. And that was about all there was to it, except that it was made clear that this book was to present an opportunity to deal not only with the problem of best method but also with the larger problems of the whole direction of our industrial system and its control, and of the place in all this of economic theory. Some seized the opportunity to discuss these larger problems. Some preferred to develop the importance of their own corners of theory; some discussed methodology exclusively. Matters of methodology generally have been subordinated, however, as it turned out, to the larger issues of general trends and their significance. But not altogether. That would have been undesirable.

There were no limits of subject matter. No one was asked to write about any particular subject. Rather, he was asked to write about the subject that seemed to him of supreme importance. If it happened that two or more contributors wrote about the same topic this was not considered undesirable, but rather as useful in helping us to come to common ground and to understand each other. And this has happened. Many of us have found our thoughts turning to the puzzling complexity of industrial life as a major modern problem, understandable and resolvable only through the use of measuring tools. Many have been impelled to express opinions on the mutual reactions of human nature and economic institutions, this leading finally into discussions of ethics. Most of us have considered the chance that economics may become more or less "scientific." Many have expressed opinions about the contemporary method of teaching economics, in what, I am afraid, are no uncertain terms. Since the chief occupation of all of us, with a single exception, is teaching, this was likely to happen, just as it was likely that we should have more definite opinions about the major fields of our teaching than any other. We did not agree about any of these matters unanimously; but in most of them the reader will discern a heavy weight of opinion on one or the other side; and he can come to his own conclusion from the arguments that defend them.

« AnteriorContinuar »