After the very important analysis (from a methodological and an ideological point of view) of the value theories, developed by the economists, one can proceed with delving into more specific aspects of their research. The field that appears to be full of relevant inferences is the distribution problem. As we have already seen in the contents, the section about distribution is present in “Foundations of Political Economy”, “Principles of Economics”, and “Layout of General Economics”. Marshall, as well as Tugan-Baranovsky, placed the discussion of the national income distribution at the very end of this work, in the 6th book. Schmoller's vision of distribution mechanisms is presented in his third book. Indeed, to explain all the processes influencing the distribution of income in any country, one should rely on the base of more detailed theories, such as labor demand and supply, interest rate setting, etc. That is why the authors preferred to present their views on this issue after providing all the necessary theoretical background in the first parts of their works; that is why it also seems a reasonable idea to take a look at the economists' opinions about distribution problem and to try to conduct a comparative analysis of this particular issue. Actually, considering the distribution theories of Marshall, Schmoller, and Tugan-Baranovsky we will be able to identify important differences and similarities of the main theoretical, ideological, methodological and practical kind of the whole doctrines, developed by them.

A closer look at the contents immediately indicates the presence of class theory in Tugan-Baranovsky's reasoning and its absence in Marshall's one. That proves above mentioned fact that Russian economist's thoughts were affected by Marx's doctrine of class struggle. Before providing an economic interpretation of distribution aspects, Tugan-Baranovsky found it necessary to present the concept of class division as a background. He distinguished three broad social classes: landlords, capitalists (manufacturers and traders) and workers (in a more specified variation, the number of the classes reaches five: landlords, big manufacturers, small manufacturers, peasants Interesting point to mention is that Tugan-Baranovsky noted that the class of peasants was absent in English society of those times. and wage workers). From the pure economical point of view, the class theory chapter, which was the first in the distribution section, served Tugan-Baranovsky to introduce these three main classes in order to assign them the three types of income in the second chapter. However, it had a strong ideological and, again, ethical value for the Russian economist. Schmoller also discussed the theoretical issues of social classes and class struggle but not in the section, devoted to distribution. Nevertheless, explaining distribution mechanisms he mentioned the same three classes as Tugan-Baranovsky.

The similarity that can be found when economists moved to economic argumentation is their definition of the national income, which they would later use to base the theories on. Tugan-Baranovsky's “net income” is defined as follows: “…the part of value, which remains disposable for the owner after covering all the expenses and which can be used by the owner according to his needs without doing any harm to the income source” (Tugan-Baranvsky, 1909, p. 523). This category should be understood as Marshall's “national dividend”, whose meaning was expressed by the following phrase: “The labor and capital of the country, acting on its natural resources, produce annually a certain net aggregate of commodities, material and immaterial, including services of all kinds. The limiting word "net" is needed to provide for the use of raw and half-finished commodities, and for the wearing out and depreciation of plant which is involved in production: all such waste must of course be deducted from the gross produce before the true or net income can be found. And net income due on account of foreign investments must be added in” (Marshall [1920] 2011, p. 301). Marshall also put in the term “national dividend” a meaning of a set of the new sources of enjoyments available for further distribution. Thus, both economists, thinking about the way of calculating the net income of an economy, used the method that now is called expenditure approach of GDP computing. Schmoller considered national income as an aggregate measure of people's incomes within the country. His definition of income itself should be quoted here: “Income is the sum of those goods, services, and power, which appear annually as a regular result of the labor and property owning of a person, a family, a social organ directly or through exchange, and is used by them for maintenance and asset multiplication” (Schmoller, 1904, p. 421). Tugan-Baranovsky's idea of disposable income is reflected in Schmoller's definition. Unlike the former, the latter indicated the annual basis of income; this detail may be explained by the importance of statistics for the German economist.

After the first similarities goes the first difference crucial for defining the features, peculiar to Marshall's, Tugan-Baranovsky's, and Schmoller's analysis. The English economist indicated four types of income: wage, capital interest, rent of land, entrepreneur's profit; the German and the Russian scholars provided classification that contained only three types: wage, capitalist's profit, rent of land. That was because Tugan-Baranovsky and Schmoller based types of income upon the three main social classes, so that workers got wage, capitalists - profit, landlords - rent. Marshall, who considered distribution problems regardless of class theory, assigned one type of income to each agent of production: wage to the labor force, interest to the capital, rent to the land and profit to the entrepreneurial skills. Marshall introduced entrepreneurial skills as a separate factor of production. This problem emerged after the marginal revolution and the subsequent theory of imputing the entire product to the factors of production. Nevertheless, for all of them the problem of distribution was a very difficult one, requiring sophisticated approaches of solving and analyzing, maybe for Marshall it was harder just because he considered more categories of income to distribute. Like Tugan-Baranovsky when speaking about the value theory, Marshall looked back at historical data in order to show that the problem under review was always making troubles for his predecessors, and as well as Tugan-Baranovsky he provided a composition of the past theories, adding necessary adjustments in order to make the theory complete and ready to explain the majority of the real cases. The same did Schmoller, of course. He discussed in detail physiocrats' approach, the ideas of J. St. Mill, Karl Marx. Both Tugan-Baranovsky and Schmoller appreciated the system build by Quesney in his “Economical table”. For Tugan-Baranovsky the main difficulty of the distribution problem laid in the complicated connections between the three main classes. A.Nove pointed out that, “according to Tugan, the distribution of the social product is the result of struggle between classes and groups. Equality of bargaining power cannot be assumed” (Nove, 1970, p. 122). At the same time he highlighted that incomes of small manufacturers are standing out of the common interclass network, that is why they can be explained only in terms of production and exchange, so there is no place for them in the distribution doctrine. This small note reveals the next difference between the two points of view, namely their attitude to distribution as a phenomenon or to the kind of processes that they considered as income distribution. Tugan-Baranovsky was speaking about distribution only in capitalist economy framework and defined it as result of production and exchange process related to the stakeholders of the process, i.e. three social classes. Moreover, Tugan-Baranovsky incorporated his value theory into distribution interpretation. As Allisson attested, only the fulfilment of Tugan's theorem condition guarantees that the distribution of the production corresponds to the economic principle of the greatest utility (Allisson, 2014). Marshall used the term “distribution” in a much broader sense; that term meant a complex mechanism, regulating the flows of money and goods among the agents of production. That mechanism was simultaneously influenced by the forces of demand and supply; it defined the world progress while being under strong dependence on the progress. Schmoller, in turn, demonstrated his interdisciplinary approach again, explaining the complicated allocation processes. He claimed that from the outset, all commodity distribution rested alongside the individual activity on social institutions; in addition to economic there were always other social political causes. Even in the era of developed markets, distribution is influenced by legal institutions, by custom and morality, as price formation and market transactions are influenced by these factors (Schmoller, 1904, p. 422). As it was mentioned above, Schmoller carefully studied Marx's and Mill's theories. Marx and his pupils thought that all economic distribution was dependent solely on the production process. On the contrary, J. St. Mill taught that production had physical (natural law) causes, that distribution was a work of people's arrangements. Schmoller believed that both of them “exaggerated” (Beide ьbertreiben) (Schmoller, 1904, p. 425). R.Faucci noticed that Schmoller eventually took the position between Marx and Mill (Faucci, 1988, p. 129). Indeed, according to Schmoller, the nature of the production process, its great changes, had the greatest influence on the social classes formation, on the possibility for certain social groups to get “cream from the milk”, to accumulate wealth, and on the probability for other groups to be oppressed. But the detail of the distribution process is determined by custom and law, by all kinds of economic institutions based on people's arrangements (ibid, p. 423-426).

Conclusion

Let the conclusion begin with the list of the most important differences between the textbooks. Nevertheless all of them represent a synthetic style, all the three economists made different emphases.

Marshall tried to provide a manual useful for students who would become business people, therefore practice-oriented. That is why he did not escape difficulties caused by the complex nature of social phenomena and conceded the importance of empirical, including historical, data. However, he did not hesitate to employ mathematical models, simplifying assumptions (for instance, the steadiest motive), and deduction in order to keep his analysis scientific. That is why Hutchison pointed out that “Alfred Marshall, under German influence, made a strenuous attempt to re-draft a historical-institutional approach on to the neo-classical abstraction” (Hutchison, 1988, p. 529). Marshall devoted the major part of “Principles” to the investigation of individual's behavior. That was noticed by Hodgson, who emphasized Marshall's difference from the Historical School adherents, concluding that “Marshall's economic thought was more individualistic and utilitarian than that of most German historicists” (Hodgson, 2005, p. 335). However, his utilitarism was not purely materialistic as he conceded the importance of `non-material elements' highlighted by German economists.

Also Tugan-Baranovsky wanted his work to be useful for society. However, even though he understood that developing theory for its own sake was meaningless, he paid much attention to it. In the preface to “Foundations” he mentioned that economic theory of his time was far from ideal and felt an urgent need to elaborate his own theoretical system. As the result, the Russian economist presented the synthetic value theory and a unique distribution theory. N.Nenovsky commented that Tugan-Baranovsky's synthesis “was not a technical exercise but a facet of the efforts of early twentieth century Russian economists to find the ethical and religious roots of economic phenomena” (Nenovsky, 2009, p. 54). While Marshall paid special attention to business practice, Tugan-Baranovsky was concerned with ethical side of labor and value creation. Allisson mentioned that even after the “marginalist revolution', there is still a strong persistence of the notion of value, while it has progressively been replaced elsewhere by prices” in Tugan-Baranovsky's analysis (Allisson, 2015, p. 110). Moreover, the latter made more use of historical data. V.Barnett, confirming this notion, claimed that “prerevolutionary Russian economic doctrine usually did have a concern with history and empirical structure, or at least more of a concern than that shown by much of English classical economics” (Barnett, 2004, p. 89).

Schmoller's “Grundriss” represents the synthesis of historical, statistical and theoretical economics. At the same time, he involved other social disciplines into the analysis of social phenomena. Psychology and demography were extremely useful for the German scholar's economic system. Shionoya also stated that “Schmoller took both philosophy and policy seriously as the sources of a newly emerging historical economics by combining them under ethical as well as historical perspectives” (Shionoya, 2005, p. 15). One should never forget the main factors, determining institutional background of any economic phenomenon: custom, law, and moral. One would never discover that Marshall or Tugan-Baranovsky assigned such an important role to these three concepts. Neither would he find such a great amount of historical and statistical evidence in English or Russian textbooks. R.Faucci provided an interesting fact that Pasquale Jannaccone (1872-1959), an Italian economist who was managing the Italian “Economist's Library”, "Biblioteca dell'economista", wanted to include Schmoller's two volumes together with Marshall's “Principles”, as in his opinion, they were perfectly complementing each other (Faucci, 1988, p. 129). Indeed, one might think that Schmoller provided the historical background for Marshall's theoretical study. As it was already mentioned, Schmoller's analysis was less individualistic than Marshall's. While Marshall was writing his “Principles” for future businessmen, Schmoller wanted his “Grundriss” to come the service of policy-makers.

The above mentioned differences could describe the salient features of English, German, and Russian styles of economic science. In fact, the deep reasons of the existence of such differences lie in specificity of academic society, surrounding economists and long lasting traditions of economic systems in the countries.

Nevertheless, there is also a number of similarities. First of all, a careful reader would notice that all the economists provided an attempt of reconciliation of inductive and deductive approaches. All of them wanted their textbooks to be useful both for scholars and for practicians. As it was already mentioned several times, they made use of historical data, of empirical evidence, and, at the same time, of theoretical reflections. Schmoller and Tugan-Baranovsky have the special attitude to ethics, to Marxian theory, to class formation theory in common. Marshall held the same views as Schmoller concerning the importance of historical study (probably because they both were Roscher's students). Marshall and Tugan-Baranovsky equally appreciated marginal utility theory. Even though the German and Russian textbooks had more in common that the English and German or English and Russian, all the three had the same great influence on the development of economic science in the countries where they were written and all over the world.

Bibliography

Allisson, Franзois. "Tugan-Baranovsky on Socialism: From Utopia to the Economic Plan." Њconomia. History, Methodology, Philosophy 4-1 (2014): 35-53.

Allisson, Franзois. Value and Prices in Russian Economic Thought: A Journey Inside the Russian Synthesis, 1890-1920. Routledge, 2015.

Backhaus, Jьrgen G. "Gustav Schmoller and the problems of today." History of Economic Ideas (1993): 3-25.

Balabkins, Nicholas W. "Schmoller in Tsarist Russia." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift fьr die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 144.3 (1988a): 581-590.

Balabkins, Nicholas W. Volkswirtschaftliche Schriften: Not by Theory Alone: the Economics of Gustav Von Schmoller and Its Legacy to America. Vol. 382. Duncker & Humblot, 1988b.

Barnett, Vincent. "Tugan-Baranovsky, the Methodology of Political Economy, and the" Russian Historical School"." History of political economy 36.1 (2004): 79-101.

Becattini, Giacomo. "The Marshallian school of economics." The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall (2006): 609-15.

Cook, Simon. “Early influences.” The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall (2006): 105-10

Boehm-Bawerk, E. V., and Henrietta Leonard. "The historical vs. the deductive method in political economy." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 1.2 (1890): 244-271.

Coase, Ronald H. "Marshall on method." The Journal of Law and Economics 18.1 (1975): 25-31.

Dardi, Marco. "Philosophy and psychology of mathematics according to Alfred Marshall." Cambridge Journal of Economics (2014): beu078.

Ekelund Jr, Robert B., and Robert F. Hйbert. A history of economic theory and method. Waveland Press, 2013.

Engelhardt, Werner W. "Gustav von Schmollers Verstдndnis der Sozialpolitik und die Probleme von heute." Sozialer Fortschritt 45.3 (1996): 72-79.

Faucci, Riccardo. "Gustav Schmoller e la Scuola storica in Italia." Quaderni di storia dell'economia politica 6.3 (1988): 111-140.

Foster, John. "Economics and the self-organisation approach: Alfred Marshall revisited?." The Economic Journal 103.419 (1993): 975-991.

Giovannini, Paolo. “Economics and sociology.” The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall (2006): 153-161.

Groenewegen, Peter D. "Alfred Marshall and the history of economic thought." Quaderni di storia dell'economia politica (1991): 59-87.

Groenewegen, Peter D. “Giving advice to governments.” The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall (2006): 85-90.

Hansen, Reginald. "Comment on “Mathematics in economics: Schmoller, Menger and Jevons” by Julian Reiss." Journal of Economic Studies 27.4/5 (2000): 492-494.

Harrod, R., and E. Hansen. "Klassiki kejn sianstva [The Classics of Keynesianism]." Jekonomika, Moscow, Russia (1997).

Hodgson, Geoffrey M. "Alfred Marshall versus the historical school?." Journal of Economic Studies 32.4 (2005): 331-348.

Hutchison, Terence W. "Gustav Schmoller and the problems of today." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift fьr die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 144.3 (1988): 527-531.

Keynes, J. M. "Alfred Marshall, 1842-1924." The Economic Journal 34.135 (1924): 311-372.

Koot, Gerard M. “Economics and economic history.” The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall (2006): 172-181.

Laughlin, J. Laurence. "Marshall's Theory of Value and Distribution." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1.2 (1887): 227-232.

Makasheva, Natalia. "Searching for an Ethical Basis of Political Economy: Bulgakov and Tugan-Baranovsky." Economics in Russia: Studies in Intellectual History (2016): 75-89.

Marshall, Alfred. Principles of Economics (8th ed.) Online Library of Liberty, PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011, edition used - London: Macmillan and Co. 8th ed. 1920)

Martinoia, Rozenn. "Les hommes d'affaires, chevaliers de l'idйal social: Alfred Marshall et la moralisation du capitalisme." Cahiers d'йconomie politique/Papers in Political Economy 1 (2012): 157-186.

Nenovsky, Nikolay. "Place of Labor and Labor Theory in Tugan Baranovsky's Theoretical System." The Kyoto Economic Review 78.1 (2009): 53-77.

Nove, Alec. "MI Tugan-Baranovsky (1865--1919)." History of Political Economy 2.2 (1970): 246-262.

Peukert, Helge. "The Schmoller Renaissance." History of Political Economy 33.1 (2001): 71-116.

Pigou, Arthur Cecil. "In Memoriam: Alfred Marshall." Memorials of Alfred Marshall (1925): 81-90.

Raffaelli, Tiziano. "Il ruolo degli studi psicologici di Marshall nella sua analisi dell'organizzazione dell'industria e degli affari." Giornale degli economisti e annali di economia (1994): 499-523.

Raffaelli, Tiziano. Marshall's evolutionary economics. Routledge, 2003.

Reiss, Julian. "Mathematics in economics: Schmoller, Menger and Jevons." Journal of Economic Studies 27.4/5 (2000): 477-491.

Robbins, Lionel. "Economics and political economy." The American Economic Review 71.2 (1981): 1-10.

Schmidt, Karl-Heinz. "Schmoller's Structure and Process Analysis: Technological Change and the Labour Problem." History of Economic Ideas (1993): 379-395.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. "History of Economic Analysis, Edited from Manuscript by Elizabeth Boody Schumpeter and with an Introduction by Mark Perlman." (2006).

Sheptun, Alla. "The German Historical School and Russian Economic Thought." Journal of Economic Studies 32.4 (2005): 349-374.

Shionoya, Yuichi. The Soul of the German Historical School. Springer Science+ Business Media, Incorporated Boston, 2005.

Taussig, Frank W. "Schmoller on Protection and Free Trade." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 19.3 (1905): 501-511.

Von Schmoller, Gustav. "The idea of justice in political economy." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 4.5 (1894): 1-41.

Von Schmoller, Gustav. Grundriss des allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre. Vol. 1. Duncker & Humblot, 1900.

Von Schmoller, Gustav. Grundriss des allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre. Vol. 2. Duncker & Humblot, 1904.

Wagner, Adolf. "Marshall's principles of economics." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 5.3 (1891): 319-338.

Богомазов, Геннадий Григорьевич. "МИ Туган-барановский: жизнь и творчество." Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 5. Экономика 1 (2006).

Клюкин, Петр Николаевич. "Российская традиция экономического анализа (1890-1935 гг.)." - М.: Институт экономики РАН, 2014. 40 с.

Туган-Барановский, Михаил Иванович. Основы политической экономии. - Санкт-Петербург: Слово, 1909, 724 с.

Цвайнерт, Й. История экономической мысли в России: 1805--1905/Пер. под науч. ред. ВС Автономова. М.: ГУ-ВШЭ (2008).

Appendix

Table 1 The idea of using Ngram Viewer in the analysis was also implemented by an economist Matias Vernengo (Bucknell University) - The frequency of the use of the word combinations “Political economy” and “Economics”

Table 2 - The frequency of the use of the word combinations “Политическая экономия” and “Экономика”

Размещено на Allbest.ru