| Project/Area Number |
14530013
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
経済理論
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Saitama University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
YANAGISAWA Tetsuya Saitama University, Department of Economics, Assistant Professor, 経済学部, 助教授 (90239806)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2002 – 2004
|
| Project Status |
Completed (Fiscal Year 2004)
|
| Budget Amount *help |
¥1,700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,700,000)
Fiscal Year 2004: ¥300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥300,000)
Fiscal Year 2003: ¥500,000 (Direct Cost: ¥500,000)
Fiscal Year 2002: ¥900,000 (Direct Cost: ¥900,000)
|
|---|
| Keywords | Malthus / Population Theory / Discourse Analysis / Malthusian Controversy / Edinburgh Review / Blackwood's Magazine / Wage Fund Theory / Westminster Review / ジャーナル分析 / プレイス / 農工バランス論 / ベンサマイト / エジンバラ・レヴュー / ウェストミンスター・レヴュー / キリスト教 / 新マルサス主義 |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
We examined articles on Malthusian population theory in the Backwood's Magazine, the Edinburgh Review, the Westminster Review, New Monthly Magazine.
1 Articles in the Blackwood's Magazine criticized Malthusian population theory, developing a short term macro model, which we can call Tory Macro Economics ahead of Keynesian economics. They supposed that food supply outstripped population growth and emphasized food supply caused by population. They rejected wage fund theory and supported Poor Law since the law made the demand for food and more employment.
2 The population growth model originally made by Malthus was a single sector model. But Edinburgh reviewers set up some population models with manufacture sector and they supposed that wage fund included manufactured goods. And they emphasized demand creation effect of manufacture through population growth. Edinburgh reviewers advocated population theory of Malthus but they revised his model tacitly Some articles implied the balanced growth between agriculture and manufacture ahead of Malthus in the 1810's. Other articles weighed land improvement and advocated rapid increase of population as a remedy for over accumulation. They didnt criticize Malthus definitely before the Corn Law controversy.
3 New Monthly Magazine sympathized Tory in our received view. But it had an ambiguous position about Malthus. Some articles in the Magazine approved the Malthusian population theory from the short term view, especially on the law ofpopulation growth caused by food supply, as a tendency law. Though they praised Malthus, they recognized variability of passion in the long term. They represented one way of a reception for Malthus, the pattern of which Westminster Review developed afterwards.
|
