Bientôt fans, merci !
Pourquoi pas vous ?
Facebook J'aime Paris 1




Call for papers ESHET Conference : 

"Bank, Money and Finance in Economic Thought"

The 23rd Annual Conference of the European Society for the History of Economic Thought (ESHET) will take place in Lille, at Science Po Lille, on 23-25 May 2019. Proposals for papers or sessions on all aspects of the history of economic thought are welcome. An abstract of about 400 words for a paper and 600 words for a session should be submitted on the conference website no later than January 14th, 2019.

Note that:
a) published papers are not eligible for submission; b) only one conference presentation is allowed per person (but more than one submission may be accepted, if involving co-authors who are also presenting); c) session proposals must conform with a standard format (3 papers, 90 min).

Particularly welcome are proposals of papers and sessions that fall into the ESHET 2019 conference theme: “Banks, Money and Finance in Economic Thought”. However, papers may be on any topic relevant to the history of economic thought, and are not restricted to the conference theme.
Since the 2007-2008 crisis, economists have shown a renewed interest in the role of banks and money in the economy. The crisis reminded the profession that the banking sector could be a major source of instability, even in developed countries. Public policies used to stem the crisis questioned mainstream ideas on central banking and banking regulation. In the resulting flow of publications, references to economists of the past, like for instance Walter Bagehot, Hyman Minsky and Irving Fisher, appeared.
If the Arrow-Debreu model and standard DSGE models prior to 2007 contained no banks, the subject figured prominently in the writings of Richard Cantillon, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Joseph Schumpeter, Ralph Hawtrey, John Maynard Keynes, and other founders of economics. From the bullionist controversy to the interwar the role of the banking system in the ups and downs of the economy has been a recurring, if not prominent, issue. Have financial intermediaries disappeared as a topic, moved from macroeconomics to microeconomics and finance, and if so, why? Or does this received view neglect important contributions?

Special attention will therefore be granted to proposals to explore how economists have understood the role of banks and their relation to money and finance since the origins of the discipline. Examples include:
- How have banks been defined through time?
- What role were banks given in theories of distribution and growth?
- The role of banks in business cycle theories and in explanations of financial crisis.
- History of the debates concerning the regulation of the banking sector.
- Non-conventional monetary policy in light of older writings on the role of the Central Bank.
- Banking economics as an applied field: origins and development?
- Crypto-currencies and their theories in historical perspective.

Scientific committee :

Arnon Arie (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev)
Caldari Katia (University of Padova)
Cherrier Béatrice (University of Cergy-Pontoise)
Gomez Betancourt Rebeca (University of Lyon 2)
Lapidus André (University Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne)
Lenfant Jean-Sébastien (University of Lille)
Mardellat Patrick (Science Po Lille)
Mehrling Perry (Columbia University)
Murphy Antoin (Trinity College)
Rubin Goulven (University Paris 1 Pathéon Sorbonne)
Sanfilippo Eleonora (Universita Degli Studi di Cassino)
Conference website : www.eshet-conference.net/lille


The European Society for the History of the Economic Thought ( ESHET website,) promotes the teaching and research in the history of economic thought in Europe. 

President : Professor André Lapidus

ACADEMIC AWARDS 2018 : the ESHET Council give awards at the annual Conference in Madrid, Spain, 7-June 2018 to three Prize-Winners, Members of PHARE.


Céline Bouillot ( PHARE, Université Paris 1) :"Vauban's fiscal reform: a will to enrich the kingdom of France"

 At the end of the 17th century one of the main concerns for English and French’s authors is the drastic increase of the public debt. The usual solution proposed at that time is to increase the quantity of money in the country through a trade surplus. However, Vauban’s solution is quite unusual: he offers a fiscal reform to increase the fluidity of money. In this paper this issue is then to understand why Vauban stands up for a fiscal reform as a project of political economy to enrich the country. It underlines the importance of the context of war on Vauban’s choice to stands up for a fiscal reform. Moreover, it shows that Vauban stresses the importance of the relation between trade, enrichment and taxation.



            A la fin du 17ème siècle, les auteurs anglais et français s’inquiètent de la hausse drastique de la dette publique. La solution habituellement proposée consiste à augmenter la quantité de monnaie dans le pays via une balance commerciale excédentaire. Cependant, Vauban suggère une autre solution : effectuer une réforme fiscale afin d’augmenter la vitesse de circulation de la monnaie. Ce papier a pour objet d’expliquer pourquoi Vauban défend une réforme fiscale comme projet d’économie politique permettant d’enrichir le pays. Il montre également l’importance du contexte de guerre sur le choix de Vauban de défendre une réforme fiscale. De plus, il montre que Vauban souligne l’importance du lien entre commerce, enrichissement et fiscalité. 




Michael Gaul (PHARE, Université Paris 1) : "Ricardo and the two gains from trade: the limitation of the theory of comparative advantage"


Abstract: In the "Essay" and the "Principles", Ricardo distinguished two gains from trade: a static gain consisting in an increase of the mass of commodities and a dynamic gain consisting in an increase of the profit rate. The additional element introduced in the "Principles" and not to be found in the "Essay" is a specification of the conditions for the realisation of the static gain, stating the irrelevance of absolute advantages. The question left open by Ricardo and usually neglected by commentators is whether the conditions for the realisation of the static gain are identical with the ones for the realisation of the dynamic gain. Addressing it requires a formalisation incorporating input trade. On this basis, Ricardo's general insight into the existence of two gains can be confirmed. However, the conditions for the realisation of the static gain are shown not to be identical with the conditions for the realisation of the dynamic gain.



Léon Guillot (PHARE, Université, Paris 1) : "Widening Wicksell’s political economy: his thoroughly revolutionary programme"


In the introduction of the first volume of Föreläsningar i nationalekonomi in 1901, Knut Wicksell (1851-1926) claims that “the very concept of political economy […] implies, strictly speaking, a thoroughly revolutionary programme”. I argue that Wicksell’s roles of social and economic reformer cannot be separated and his contribution to both fields has to be considered as a whole. In the beginning of the 1890’s Wicksell claimed that economic and social problems may be solved only by a complete social reorganisation, i.e. the implementation of social justice.


Dans l’introduction de son premier volume de son Föreläsningar i nationalekonomi in 1901, Knut Wicksell (1851-1926) explique que le concept d’économie politique implique un « thoroughly revolutionary programme ». Je montre que les rôles de réformateur économique et social ne peuvent être séparés et que sa contribution dans ces deux champs doit être considérée dans son ensemble. Au début des années 1890 Wicksell expliquait que les problèmes sociaux et économiques ne pourraient être résolus que par une réorganisation sociale complète ; par la mise en place de la justice sociale.