Content uploaded by Paul Mosley
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Mosley on Feb 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
‘Marvellous Intellectual Feasts’: Arthur Lewis at the London School of Economics 1933-1948
Abstract
The paper is concerned with the decade and a half spent by the development economist, Arthur Lewis, at the London School of Economics between 1933 and 1948. It discusses the intellectual traditions of the institution that Lewis joined, and the various influences on the young economist. His research and teaching roles in London and Cambridge are covered, together with his work for the Fabian Society, and his links with the anti-imperialist movements centred in London in the 1930s and 1940s. The aim of the paper is to shed light on this highly significant but little known period in the career of the foremost development economist.
... These mostly result in a series of relocations that force us to rethink the geographical and institutional spaces of Lewis's evolution. First, Mosley and Ingham do an excellent job at exploring the role played by what Lewis called the LSE's "marvellous intellectual feasts" in shaping his outlook (see also Ingham and Mosley 2013 ). Given Lewis's lifelong anti-colonialism and Fabian socialist sympathies, one is left to wonder what his economic analysis would have been like if he had not been exposed at a young age to the ideas of Friedrich A. Hayek, Lionel Robbins, and, especially, Arnold Plant. ...
div class="title">Staddon John , The New Behaviorism, second edition (New York: Psychology Press, 2014), pp. 282, $135 (hardcover). ISBN 978-1-84872-688-8.
- Volume 38 Issue 4 - Alessandro Innocenti
Análisis del capitalismo contemporáneoy el proceso de globalización y los elementos que definen la financiarización
div class="title">Mosley Paul and Ingham Barbara , Sir Arthur Lewis: A Biography (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp. x + 342, $120 (hardcover). ISBN 978-0-230-55358-3.
- Volume 38 Issue 4 - Gerardo Serra
This paper examines the history of the first British Government funding of social science through the Colonial Social Science Research Council (CSSRC) from 1944 to 1962 and its implications for social anthropology. The author argues that one of the unforeseen consequences of council largesse was the consolidation of British social anthropology within the metropolitan academy. Although the discipline gradually distanced itself from the council’s remit of « colonial social problems », anthropology prospered under the CSSRC’s political and financial sponsorship. The author explores the role of senior anthropologists in mediating this relationship, particularly the work of Council members Raymond Firth and Audrey Richards. Ultimately, he suggests, this government patronage proved a mixed blessing. The political vision of the CSSRC was inevitably one of gradualist decolonisation, and the council avoided addressing the epistemological implications of African anti-colonialism. Social anthropology increasingly sought to redefine itself as a theoretical university-based discipline, but the demise of the CSSRC in 1961 had significant implications for the discipline’s identity. The end of empire coincided with anthropology’s waning influence within the social sciences. Despite anthropology’s ambivalent relationship to British colonial administration, it was acutely vulnerable to changes in the prevailing political wind.
Early Law and Economics advocates asserted that antidiscrimination laws were wasteful and unnecessary. This Article argues that that flawed conclusion resulted in a disregard, especially among African-American political and intellectual leaders, for economic analysis as a means of understanding racial phenomenon. The lack of economic analysis of race in market transactions is of great concern. Disparities in education, housing and employment have been intractable, Suggs argues, because racial disparities in business revenues dwarf those income disparities. To solve these disparities, however, requires not regulations but market incentives. Devising market interventions requires a sophisticated understanding of the way race affects market transactions; and until economic analysis of race is encouraged, little can be accomplished. To encourage efforts to understand the way racial phenomena operate in commercial markets, this Article first identifies the mistakes Law and Economics made early in the civil rights movement. After discussing racial disparities in income, wealth, and business activity the Article argues that the private power created by business ownership helps explain persistent inequality. The Article's economic analysis of specific racial phenomenon suggests further analysis of racial phenomena in commercial markets is needed if there is to be greater African-American business activity -something from which we can all benefit.