Alfred Marshall remains somewhat of an enigmatic figure in the evolution of economic analysis. Historians of economic thought almost invariably accord Marshall a prominent role in the early development of "neoclassical" economics and in partial equilibrium analysis in particular. However, as Gerald Shove's (1942) and Joseph Schumpeter's (1941) semi-centennial appraisals observed more than fifty years ago, despite the prominent position designated to him, little in fact remains of Marshall's theoretical structure and methodological approach. Paul Samuelson, who was to play a prominent role in the subsequent development of mainstream economic analysis, placed the demise of Marshall's theoretical structure in the following context: Although harsh, these are my well-considered judgments on the matter, and I mention them only because no one can understand the history of the subject if he does not realize that much of the work from 1920 to 1933 was merely the negative task of getting Marshall out of the way. (1967, 111) Contrary to the judgment of Samuelson and others, the central argument developed in this paper is that the nature of the difficulties that Marshall had unsuccessfully attempted to resolve was fundamentally misunderstood by many of Marshall's critics, supporters, and subsequent contributors to the development of mainstream economics. This misunderstanding emerges largely from a misinterpretation of the intended role of Marshall's Representative Firm concept, which was at the center of the cost controversies of the 1920s.
展开▼
