Alfred Marshall and François Perroux: the neglected liaison^*

* This paper belongs to a wider project that has received funding from the Associate Research Directors Programme of the Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.

ABSTRACT

The richness François Perroux's economic theories have allowed the literature to highlight several connections between him and other authors. Among the names mentioned in the literature, one economist is conspicuous by his absence: Alfred Marshall. However, the relations between Marshall and Perroux are manifold and are far from accidental: not only because Perroux was a careful reader of Marshall but also and moreover because they both have an important common ground, which affected their perspectives. The main aim of this paper is to inquire into the aspects that characterise Marshall's and Perroux's approaches, stressing their affinities and underlining their common roots.

KEYWORDS:

• Organisation
• competition
• progress
• power
• methodology

JEL CODES:

• B
• B3
• B4

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Richard Arena, Rolande Borrelly, Muriel Dalpont Legrand, Patrick Gilormini, Jean-Louis Perrault, and Riccardo Soliani for their valuable comments and very helpful suggestions. I also thank this Journal's two anonymous referees for their very constructive remarks.

Disclosure statement

The usual disclaimers apply.

Notes

* This paper belongs to a wider project that has received funding from the Associate Research Directors Programme of the Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, Paris.

¹ Perroux's archive is held at the Institut Mémoires de l’Èdition Contemporaine (IMEC), Abbaye d'Ardenne, Caen, Normandy.

² “L'unité de mon propos m'est strictement dictée par un changement majeur qui s'est opéré dans l'action et la pensée économiques: le projet humain l'emporte sur l’équilibre mécaniciste d'où l'homme est à peu près banni” (1991, 20).

³ “Le moment est venu d'instaurer une économie de l'homme” (quoted in Perrault 2014a, 112).

⁴ According to Perroux, besides Marshall, the classical economists as well had the merit to consider, in their analysis, a man of “flesh and bone” (“des hommes de chair et d'os” ; 1943, 9).

⁵ “L'individu, radicalement autre qu'un objet inerte, est social et socialisé” (1984, 109).

⁶ The most representative is certainly that between Comte himself and J. S. Mill.

⁷ “Fécond aussi en ce que la distinction ouvre une collaboration entre deux disciplines qui peuvent etre réciproquement des auxiliaires l'une pour l'autre, à condition de ne jamais confondre leurs domaines et de ne jamais opposer leurs méthodes” (1954a, 348).

⁸ See Section 2.2.

⁹ Perroux was born, studied, and started his academic career in Lyon. From 1928 to 1937, he was a professor of economics at the Faculty of Law that was, especially at that time, animated by personalities whose scientific contributions have been of great importance in Perroux's formation and cultural framework. Grounded in the early French socialists’ tradition (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Proudhon), we find here (with E. Antonelli, É. Bouvier, C. Brouilhet, C.-R. Gonnard, É. Lambert, P. Pic, and others; see Frobert et al 2000) a particular attention given to social questions (housing, problems of urbanisation, working classes conditions, and so forth) and to the role of sociology, the conception of socialism as humanist socialism which is considered the basis for the so-called “juridical socialism”, developed under the important contributions of E. Lévy (Frobert 2000).

¹⁰ Laws are considered strictly interwoven with the economic, social, and political contexts ; moreover, they represent the institutional framework, which must be taken into account in order to understand the capitalistic dynamics. This perspective is evident in his PhD thesis Le problème du profit, where he distinguishes between profit as economic category and profit as historic–juridical category (see this on Dufourt 2000); but is also traceable in the relevance given in all his further writings to the concept of power (see below).

¹¹ “Les recherches d’économie...ménagent une tension permanent entre l'observation empirique et l'appareil analytique, qui dissipe tout illusion sur la généralité des propositions considérées provisoirement comme le plus cohérentes et les mieux vérifiées” (1961, 530).

¹² In the literature, Perroux's connection with the Austrian School, particularly with Mises and Schumpeter, is largely underlined (Blaug 1966; Guillen Romo 2010; Harrison 1992; Perrault 2014b; Uri 1987, 2014). It is true that Perroux – thanks to a fellowship of the Rockefeller Foundation – went to Austria to meet the representatives of the School and that he himself “would be tempted to date [his] birth certificate as an economist ‘Vienna 1934’” (1980, 147). He also wrote the Preface to the French edition of Mises’ book on Socialism (1938d) and a long and rich introduction to Schumpeter's volume on economic development (1935), with which he actually introduced the Austrian author in France. Numerous are then the references to their contributions in his writings. It is nonetheless true that in many parts, Perroux is more critical than approving of the Austrians’ perspective. With regard to Mises, Menger, Böhm Bawerk, and others (on Schumpeter, see note 28), he critically underscores, for instance, how their theories are based on a “pure logic of choice” from which real men are removed (“L'homme total et vivant s'est retiré de la science économique”, 1943, 10). Mises is then mentioned among the “liberals” who still linger on the error of confounding labour with a simple merchandise (1943, 24–25). Marshall, on his side, increasingly criticised many exponents of the School, particularly Böhm Bawerk, Wieser, and Menger, for their critical attitude towards the previous economists (Marshall 1920, 82) and especially for their theory of value (Groenewegen 1995, 446–448, 777–778).

¹³ In 1972, Perroux has presented a speech titled “Match oder oekonomische Gesetzmäsiigkeit”, clearly inspired to Böhm-Bawerk's “Match oder oekonomische Gesetz” (1914). See this on Perrault 2014b and Uri 1987.

¹⁴ Notwithstanding Marshall's alleged hostility to Historical School, he has several affinities with it, particularly evident in Industry and Trade (Groenewegen 1995, 707) and Principles where he notes: “they have made careful and profound analyses which add much to our knowledge” (1920, 768). Perroux praises the representatives of the Historical School for the attention given to the succession of different phases or periods in economic life, which finally allowed them to embark on a “dynamic line of research” (1995, 56), and for their important hints related to the concept of “structure” (1961, 558). See also footnote 42.

¹⁵ However, Marshall becomes deeply critical when applied and statistical research is done with a too large use of mathematics. As clarified to Bowley: “Adelphi Terrace [LSE] is doing wonderfully good work: but it has the defects of its difficulties. It must strike the public imagination, and therefore, it cannot afford to be quite frank in explaining how very difficult economic problems are; how untrustworthy is the knowledge that can be got by slight study; how many years a man must work at science before it will teach him to speak as wisely in difficult social problems as he could have done by mere instinct, if he had spent the time in a level headed observation of life, instead of in formal study... the School tends to emphasise the mechanical methods of investigation: i.e., those in which highly specialised calculating machines … can be set to tunes based on formulae (often mathematical formulae) and to grind out results wh are officially pure and above reproach. … you were made for better things” (3 March 1901, Whitaker II, 305–306).

¹⁶ J. M. Keynes “was one of the first protectors” (Perroux 1980, 151) of ISEA, together with Gaëtan Pirou and Charles Rist (Perrault 2014b, 83).

¹⁷ This point, often stressed by Marshall, is further made clear in a letter written to Bowley (26 February 1906), where he writes: “I know I had a growing feeling in the later years of my work at the subject that a good mathematical theorem dealing with economic hypotheses was very unlikely to be good economics: and I went more and more on the rules: (1) Use mathematics as a shorthand language, rather than an engine of inquiry (2) Keep to them till you have done (3) Translate into English (4) Then illustrate by examples that are important in real life (5) Burn the mathematics (6) If you can't succeed in 4, burn 3” (Whitaker 1996, III, 130).

¹⁸ In the introduction to Schumpeter's volume, Perroux mentions Marshall among the authors that, rightly, do not have « the superstition » of mathematics (1935, 15).

¹⁹ Or again: “C'est depuis que notre profession a reçu la grâce de mathématiques simples qu'elle l'a payée, dans les plus mauvais cas, par une certaine inattention à l'essentiel, s'il n'est pas immédiatement mathématisable” (1984, 110).

²⁰ As he notes approvingly, Marshall did not build a general static system but he simply used a static method without doing any violence to reality; accordingly, his method of logical simplification and temporary abstraction denies that static state is the essential minimum, and moreover, the normal content of economic processes. Statics, in the limited use he made, is just a fiction and a tool of analysis (“Marshall ne construira donc pas un système général de statique. Il se bornera à employer ce que l'on nomme improprement selon lui la méthode statique, sans faire violence à la réalité. Il considérera tel phénomène économique isolé en supposant que le réseau d'autres phénomènes dans lequel il s'insère reste constant, en admettant par hypothèse que toutes les autres conditions restent égales et en essayant ensuite progressivement de déterminer dans quel sens jouent leurs modifications et si elles tendent ou non à s'équilibrer. Ce procédé de simplification logique et d'abstraction temporaire, conçue comme le point de départ d'une étude à base d'abstraction décroissante, nie que l'état statique représente le minimum essentiel, ni à plus forte raison le contenu normal du processus économique. La statique, dans la mesure limitée où il en est fait emploi, est une «fiction » , un instrument d'analyse” (1935, 43).

²¹ He writes: “Alfred Marshall ...placed emphasis on partial equilibrium analysis, which, had it been allowed to go beyond a narrow conception of market forces, should have led on to an analysis of structured sectors and the relationships between them” (1983, 61).

²² “La théorie de l’équilibre général n'est pas la simplification de la vie économique observable: elle en est le contrepied: on ne retrouve pas la réalité en modifiant peu à peu l’équilibre général, en compliquant progressivement le modèle: pour trouver la réalité, il faut choisir un autre modèle” (1991, 34).

²³ “L’équilibre général est une gymnastique de l'esprit qui réduit des actes d'hommes à des forces mécaniquement organisées, et qui, dans ces conditions, engendrent inévitablement le résultat assigné” (1991, 34).

²⁴ He writes: “Thus, however complex the problem may become, we can see that it is theoretically determinate, because the number of unknowns is always exactly equal to the number of the equations which we obtain” (1920, 856).

²⁵ This concept is replied several times in his correspondence. In a letter to Bowley, for instance, he admits: “I regard the method of Least Squares as involving an assumption with regard to symmetry that vitiates all its implications to economic problems with which I am acquainted. In every case that I have considered at all carefully, I think harm has been done by treating the results as ‘economic’. I regard them as mathematical toys” (21 February 1901, Whitaker 1996, II, 301).

²⁶ Perroux underlines also the contribution of Schumpeter for the attention given to innovations as important dinamical engine. Literature often stresses the link between Perroux and Schumpeter (Marchal 1953; Destanne de Bernis 1966; Uri 1987; Cohen 2006). It is true that Schumpeter is one of Perroux's main references (1980) whom he defined his “master and dear friend” (1950a, 69). However, along with the praises of Schumpeter's contribution, Perroux underlines its several weak or doubtful aspects. He indeed criticises Schumpeter's concept of dynamics, deeply imbued into a static framework, and the lack of a clear distinction between statics and dynamics (1935, 1950a); so far, Schumpeter's model is just an “economic circuit without growth” (1949, 38); moreover, his hints about dynamics are based only on the concept of innovation (1961a, 36) which relies too heavily on the sole role recognized to innovator entrepreneurs, out of any historical and institutional frameworks (1966a, 244–246; 1961, 149) (see this on Dehem 1966).

²⁷ “La biologie contemporaine enseigne que l'homme est un système ouvert: il reçoit et émet des forces et des effets: c'est la condition fondamentale qui joue contre l'isolement économique des individus imaginé par un certain néoclassicisme. Aussi bien est-il légitime d'admettre que les groupes sociaux sont des systèmes ouverts, dans une société qui elle-même est un système ouvert.... ” (1984, 110).

²⁸ They both recall the important contributions – notwithstanding their evident limits – given to biological perspective by Comte, Darwin and particularly Spencer (Marshall 1920, ix, Appendix C; Whitaker 1996, II, 385; Perroux 1943, 16, 1983, 3–4).

²⁹ “La biologie ....[aide] ..au dépaysement nécessaire et à l'offensive contre quelques lenteurs de l’économie standard” (1991, 511).

³⁰ “La description de l'acte économique à l'aide de catégories empruntées aux sciences de la vie organique a été maniée avec délicatesse et précisément dressée contre le vue mécanistes par Marshall....” (1943, 18).

³¹ “The growing prominence of what has been called the biological view of the science has tended to throw the notions of economic law and measurement into the background; as though such notions were too hard and rigid to be applied to the living and ever changing economic organism. But biology itself teaches us that the vertebrate organisms are the most highly developed. The modern economic organism is vertebrate; and the science, which deals with it should not be invertebrate. It should have delicacy and sensitiveness of touch which are required for enabling it to adapt itself closely to the real phenomena of the world; but none the less must it have a firm backbone of careful reasoning and analysis” (1920, 769).

³² As postscript of his Science de l'homme et science économique (1943) where he stresses the important contribution given by Alexis Carrel to the definition of Science de l'Homme, Perroux writes the following note for the reader: “Je dois appeler l'attention du lecteur sur la portée inexacte que j'accordais avec une bonne foi un peu naïve, à l’époque où fût prononcée cette conférence, aux énoncés de M.Carrel. N’étant pas formé aux disciplines biologiques et trompé par des affirmations massives et indémontrêes faites au nom de la Science, j'avais accordé à ‘l'Homme, cet inconnu” un crédit que les spécialistes jugent sévêrement. Il me faut donc, à mon grand regret, prévenir le public non initié contre une erreur dont je fus, pour un temps, la victime, et n'entends plus être le propagandiste. L'idée et les destinées de la Science de l'Homme ne sont heureusement pas liées à certain de leurs interprétations”.

³³ Marshall was critical of the radical version of Eugenics. One of his rare involvements in public debates regarded a study by Karl Pearson for Galton Laboratories in 1910 on the influence of parental alcoholism (see this on correspondence in Whitaker 1996, III, 250–281; Groenewegen 1995, 479–485; Soffer 1978, 90–95).

³⁴ This criticism recurs often in Perroux's writings and reflections. In his course on ‘History of Contemporary Economic Doctrines’ held in 1947 at “l'Institut d'Etudes Politiques” of Paris, for instance, Perroux warns against Keynes’ insufficient precision of the determination of time periods within which he develops his raisoning (“l'insufficient riguer que [Keynes] montre dans la détermination des péroides sur lesquelles il raisonne”, quoted in Arena and Maricic 1988, 18).

³⁵ Keynes’ timeless framework is indeed widely criticised in France since the early diffusion of the General Theory (Arena and Maricic 1988; Arena and Schmidt 1999), which actually for several reasons (Rosanvallon 1989) takes place rather slowly. Until post-World War II (after the war Keynes became particularly popular in non-academic milieus: see this on Rosanvallon 1989; Arena 2000), General Theory was mainly object of a severe criticism for its treatment of time, which French economists developed in different ways (see on this the rich and detailed account in Arena and Mariric 1988). Perroux grounds his critique on the unavoidable need to take into account economic phenomena in their (time and space) development and to contribute to a proper and dynamic theory of progress (see this on Guillen Romo 2010). According to Perroux, Keynes’ neglect of time and equilibrium framework affected and therefore limited many of the – however “undeniable” – contributions of post Keynesians’ theories of balanced growth (1983, 66). Perroux was for long time in close contact with several exponents of the London School of Economics and the Cambridge School. Among them: he largely appreciated Harrod's contribution and interpretation of the Keynesian theory (Perroux 1950, 58; Arena 2000, 995) and shared the meaning of his motto “money is power” (1982, 42); but he was critical of Harrod (and Domar) model because unable to overcome the contrast between development and equilibrium (1958). He recognised the efforts made by Kaldor in his cycle model (1949) and in his revision of the General Equilibrium system (1973a) and Kalecki's contribution to the study of pianification (1965). He was particularly in close relation with J.Robinson: she was guest of ISEA since 1945 and invited Perroux to Cambridge and they had a rich correspondence. Perroux acknowledged her contribution and particularly her critique of the neoclassical approach (1973a, 1984) but he criticized her concept of industry as production unity (1971) and that of disguised uneployment (1966b).

³⁶ Accordingly, evolution implies a process of increased differentiation and integration, increased complexity and adaption to and of the external environment.

³⁷ Perroux largely praises Marshall's limited and side use of statics (“[son] usage limité et, pour ainsi dire, latéral de la notion de statique”, 1935, 38, see also 42–43).

³⁸ See Section 3.3.

³⁹ But still very different, because far more complex. See the section above.

⁴⁰ The approach to social sciences, known as Structuralism – of which Herbert Spencer is considered one of the founders – develops between the 1950s and 1960s and spreads particularly in France (Marchal 1953; Arena 2000). Perroux was one of its main representatives (Bastide 1962) and through the use of the concept of “structure”, he focuses on the features of his dynamics of inequality and power (1959, 1961a, 1982, 1983).

⁴¹ “La structure d'un ensemble rend intellegible son fonctionnement: la structure d'un grand ensemble ne se comprend pas que par l'organisation que la caractérise” (1975, 303).

⁴² See also 1991, 532–533. We find here a clear echo of Spencer's theory (see note 30).

⁴³ “Toute unité économique..agit dans un environnement plastique. Elle cherche à atteindre ses propres buts en s'adaptant à l'environnement rigide et en modifiant l'environnement plastique” (1961a, 258).

⁴⁴ “L’évolution ne peut être que lente, sans doute marquée d'hésitation” (1984, 111).

⁴⁵ “Les institutions sont des cadres durables d'action, des règles durables du jeu social et des habitudes collective” (1960, 118).

⁴⁶ “Leur changement est plus lent que d'autres variables économiques...[comment] les cotations d'un titre en bourse....” (1960, 119).

⁴⁷ The so-called (Old) American Institutionalism particularly focused on the importance of institutions, their role and evolution. Not surprisingly, the presence of some “Institutionalist” aspects has often been stressed in Marshall's writings (see, for instance, Schumpeter 1941; Jensen 1990), although no significant connection occurred between the Cambridge and the American economists. Several Institutionalist elements are recognized also in Perroux (see Bocage 1977; Dufourt 2000; Chassagnon 2015). Institutionalism with its root, the Historical School, has been important references also for a number of scholars of the Faculty of Law of Lyon, as Antonelli, Gonnard (Perroux's PhD supervisor), Lévy and Philip (see this on Frobert et al 2000). Particular relevant for them was the contribution of J. R. Commons for the importance given to economics, law, and sociology in his approach (Frobert 2000a, 2000b). Perroux appears indeed far less enthusiastic about institutionalism, which for him describes the frameworks without renewing the science of their functioning (1943, 10).

⁴⁸ Perroux distinguishes economic space as content of plan, field of forces, and homogeneous whole (1950b, 1961a, 1975).

⁴⁹ See, in particular, his concept of “Economic Nations” (Becattini 2006).

⁵⁰ In Marshall's personal library, there are several Levasseur's books and articles collected in his Bound volumes (Caldari 2000, 2003). Perroux acknowledges Levasseur's contribution in many writings and in the inaugural Lecture at College de France he depicts him as the historian, statistician, and geographer who with a wide perspective and erudition has promoted the important connection between economics and history (1956a, 6–7).

⁵¹ Although for him economics and geography remained something apart, like in Perroux, we find here again the idea that economics – as social science – has to cooperate with other disciples but remains distinct from them: “It is becoming the fashion to allot a large place to geography in modern economic thought. That may be carried too far. But much may be gained by a broad, general study of the economic influences which mountains and watersheds, roads, railroads, rivers and seas exert on life and work; and the geographical distribution of the resources and methods of agriculture, mining, manufactures, and transport. This would prepare the way for an analysis of the interactions of the material and the human elements in the prosperity of cities, of industrial districts and of nations” (1902, 174).

⁵² In Unités Actives et Mathématiques Nouvelles, Perroux indeed utilises the term externality with the Marshallian meaning of external economies (1994[1975], 365).

⁵³ He acknowledged the importance of Chamberlin's Monopolistic Competition which greatly contributed to economics by giving the necessary tools to integrate into a rigorous and realistic theory important elements as economic inequality, economic power, irreversible influences that are completely excluded from the perfect competition analysis (1953, xiv). It may be worth noting that Chamberlin – “a frequent guest and a permanent associate of the ISMEA” (Perroux 1980, 152) – often refers to Marshall in his lectures and writings, stressing how far he was from perfect competition assumptions and the utility of his partial equilibrium approach (1961).

⁵⁴ For the role of gift, see Section 3.3.

⁵⁵ Perroux reminds particularly the works of the Classical economists and Marx.

⁵⁶ “Les agents …n'ont pas de systèmes de références indépendants les uns des autres: ils peuvent au contraire s'entre-influences; ils peuvent exercer les uns sur les autres un pouvoir; en outre ils appartiennent à un groupe et même à plusieurs groups dans une société considérée: ils ne peuvent pas être considérés comme isolés les uns des autres” (1991, 41).

⁵⁷ Whereas the micro-unity or simple unity is submitted only to one power, that has to face the limits imposed by the surrounding environment, macro-unity or complex unity is formed by a ruling unity and several partially subordinated units (1982, 354). As underlined by Perroux, the concept of macro-unity has some connection with that of team as elaborated by Jacob Marshak and Roy Radner in Economic Theory of teams (Cowles Foundation monograph, 1972).

⁵⁸ In the 1949 book Power. A New Social Analysis.

⁵⁹ As, for instance, in the course on economic progres held at the Collège de France in 1955–1956 (IMEC Archive).

⁶⁰ Among the several notes written for his last book on Progress, there are many sections with the title “nations within nations” (Caldari and Nishizawa 2011, 2014).

⁶¹ The Marshallian motto “the One in the Many the Many in the One” well synthetizes this idea of complexity (Caldari 2015), that is easily discernable also in Perroux (for instance, when he underlines that each institution is a composition of plural, different, and sometimes opposite perspectives – “the many” – which are summarised in the same institution – “the one” (1961a, 401).

⁶² In his early writings, Marshall tries to solve the problem of the labour market analytically: in the essays On Wages (1869–70) and The Pure Theory of Foreign Trade (1876–77), Marshall deals with the problem of the relation trade unions – associations of employers by using the tool “non competing groups”, used also by J. S. Mill (1848), Cleffie Leslie (1868), and Cairnes (1874). If the society is considered in its several groups, competition can freely work inside each group but not among different groups. That is why Marshall, for the latter kinds of exchanges, tries to apply the method of reciprocal demand used for trade between different countries (Caldari and Mistri 2006). At the end, Marshall was deeply disappointed by the results of this method and did not use it anymore for that question. Perroux, for his part, considers Cairnes’ non competing groups “a useful concept to deal with the transmission of information” (1961a, 367) and corroborates the similarity between “syndicates of labourers”, “syndicates of firms”, and “syndicates of nations” (1982, 40–41).

⁶³ This is true since his early writings, where Perroux contrasts the concept of “group” to the Marxian notion of “class” (see particularly 1938e). Perroux's reflections on capitalism, its functioning shortcomings, are deeply grounded on a careful reading of Marx and Marxian texts (especially when he was in Lyon: see 1926, 1928a, 1928b) that he critically recasted and personally interpreted in several writings (see particularly his preface to Marx's works, 1963). On Perroux (critical) reader of Marx and Marxians: Chambre 1978; Dufourt 2009; Savall 2005; Villanuera 1994.

⁶⁴ Besides Russel's, which is openly recognized by Perroux, we may here notice another important influence in the contribution of his two masters: Gonnard (Potier 2000) and Antonelli (Frobert 2000a). They both stress the importance of taking into account the society as made of different groups with different degrees of power.

⁶⁵ Who was, for Perroux – “aware of the deflexions which market society forces even on powerful currents in men's souls and eager to transmute factious benevolence into effective benevolence: passionate about a spiritual reform that would liberate the society of noble men, now ready to break through the cocoon of storekeeper-society” (1954b, 16).

⁶⁶ For this “essential aspect of man”, Perroux (1961a, 338) refers also to J. S. Mill (see also 1960, 28–40), who deeply inspired Marshall (Groenewegen 1995; Raffaelli 2003; see also the note below), and to his chapter on stationary state, where progress is conceived as human betterment (Caldari and Masini 2008). See Section 3.4.

⁶⁷ This latter aspect is what particularly characterizes the personalist conception of man as developed by Mounier (Ayati 2000) together with the importance given to community (see also footnote 78).

⁶⁸ “Hope and ambition, and some scope for the play of free competition, are conditions – necessary conditions as far as we can tell – of human progress. But the great evil of our present system, which is one chief aim of cooperation – as I take it – to remove, lies in the fact that the hope and ambition by which men's exertions are stimulated have in them too much that is selfish and too little that is unselfish” (1889, 238).

⁶⁹ On their distinction, see Gide and Rist (1954, 242–243).

⁷⁰ Marshall's admiration for the French socialists is well documented (McWilliams-Tullberg 1975; Groenewegen 1995) and confirmed by his writings where, as in Principles for his chapter on progress he refers to their “noble character and vivid poetic imagination” (1920, 844) and stresses their “many of the most valuable ...suggestions ..” (1920, 766). In his Inaugural Lecture as Professor in Cambridge (1885), he praises their knowledge “about the hidden springs of human action of which the economists took no account” (in Pigou 1925, 156) and among his notes for a lecture course given in 1886 on “Socialism and the functions of government” there are several quotations from Fourier, Saint-Simon, Louis Blanc, and others (McWilliams Tullberg 2006, 519). Marshall's acquaintance with French socialists derives from both primary (particularly Louis Blanc, Chevalier, Fourier, Gide, Le Play, Proudhon) and secondary sources (mainly J. S. Mill, Ludlow, and Maurice). Mill, “largely influenced by French ideas” (Gide and Rist 1948, 372) was particularly “under the influence of the Saint-Simonians” (Gide and Rist 1948, 376); the Christian socialists Ludlow and Maurice too were strongly Saint-Simonians, particularly close to Chevalier.

⁷¹ Saint-Simon's important influence on Perroux is largely recorded in the literature (Cormerais 2014; Le Guennec 1964; Perrault 2014a; Walch 1969; Uri 1987) but it is moreover testified by Perroux himself who in several writings relies on Saint-Simon to emphasise the importance of morality, cultur,e and education (1964, 1973b); the features of industrialisation (1964, 1970, 1982), the crucial role of men (1943, 1954) and the contents of true progress (1963b, 1967). References are then made to Chevalier, for the emphasis given to the creative intervention of state (1956a, 6, 1964, 21, 24–25), to Proudhon, for the importance of social groups (1942a, 96) and their necessary interaction with the state (1938a, 296, 322), and to Le Play for the significant role of family (1942a, 14–15).

⁷² Various references to Utopia and ideals are particularly made in his late notes on progress (Caldari and Nishizawa 2011, 2014; Dardi 2010; Groenewegen 1995).

⁷³ Marshall was deeply involved with the Christian Socialists (Caldari and Nishizawa 2011) and he was particularly “enthusiastic” (Groenewegen 1995, 246), “friendly and sympathetic” (Groenwegen 1996, 86) with Ludlow, who was educated in France and spent long time in Paris where he was in direct contact with the socialists (Woodworth 1903). Maurice's Christian socialist principles (especially the emphasis on cooperation and the attention given to the working classes) were highly instructive for Marshall (Groenwegen 1995, 144). Their motto was “our great desire is to Christianise socialism” (Woodworth 1903, 16) focusing on the betterment of individuals and their character, an idea which Marshall clearly shared and that explains “those ‘pious and prim moralising’ which may seem out of place in a treatise like the Principles” (Whitaker 1975, I, 112). Another important influence is due to the Catholic Le Play, whose “monumental” work is often recalled (1920): the relevance given by Marshall to the role of family in a truly progressive society sounds very close to Le Play's perspective.

⁷⁴ This was the underlying principle of the Cambridge Ethical School, with which Marshall was involved “for the whole of its existence” (Groenewegen 1995, 448);

⁷⁵ In Principles, he maintains: “The elevation of the ideals of life on which this depends, is due on the one side to political and economic causes, and on the other to personal and religious influences; among which the influence of the mother in early childhood is supreme” (1920, 198), stressing that “the progress of industry depends” on “the religious, the moral, the intellectual, and the artistic faculties” (1920, 247). For other interesting insights, see his rich correspondence with Bishop B. F. Westcott (Whitaker 1996, II and III).

⁷⁶ He was engaged into the Catholic movement Jeune Droite (Perrault 2014b) and actively participated into the debates of the so-called “non-conformistes des années 30”, that strongly characterised French intellectual and political milieus in those years (Del Bayle 1969) and gathered together the ideas of French socialism and social Catholicism (Alcouffe 2008). He was close to Emmanuel Mounier, very much influenced by Proudhon (Le Goff 2014a; Le Goff 2014b; Rendtorff 2014), founder of the revue Esprit in1932 (to which Perroux collaborated) and father of the so-called Communitarian Personalism, which was deeply inspired by Maritain's “Humanisme intégral” (Dreyfuss 1988; see also Da Silva 2014). Mounier aimed at founding a new civilisation based on persons considered as part and foundation of any community. Such a civilisation required a moral and spiritual transformation of individuals, mainly based on Catholic principles (Le Goff 2014a). Perroux was then in close contact with father Lebret (Puel 2014), largely inspired by Le Play (Pelletier 1996) and advocate of a human economy based on individuals and their community (Lebret and Célestin 1950). In 1942, Perroux founds with Lebret the association and the revue « Èconomie et Humanisme » which were “firmly personalist and communitarian” (Lebret and Célestin 1950, 568); among the people involved in Èconomie et Humanisme a significant role was played by Desroche, deeply influenced by Saint-Simon, Fourier, and Owen, and advocate of a homo cooperativus (Clément et al 2014). On the relation between Lebret, Desroche, Mounier, and Perroux, see Toupin-Guyot (2014).

⁷⁷ According to Perroux, socialism and christianism may reach some common aims if they renounce to their extreme positions: if socialism denies the centrality of earth happiness and temporal power; and christianism refuses to comply only with the rich and powerful class of people. Only in this way – ignored by most socialist heads but very well known by any humble priest of the countryside (“Tout cela, des chefs socialistes l'ignorent ou feigent de l'ignorer. Mais le plus humble curé de campagne le sait”, 1938a, 316) – christianism may be socialised and socialism christianized (1938a, 313–316).

⁷⁸ We can see here the peculiar conception of socialism which characterised the Lyonnais milieu (see above).

⁷⁹ The search of an alternative between pure liberalism and marxism characterised the activities of many non conformists of the 1930s (Alcouffe 2008). Perroux, particularly involved with the topics of community and organisation, tries to promote a “French” version of corporatism or neo-corporatism (1938a, 1942a;), which aimed at joining labour and capital into an organic whole (1938a). Labour community was to be neatly distinguished from any totalitarian corporatism (1942b) in so far as it was based on free syndicalism (1938b) and equal number and power between labourers and entrepreneurs (1938a).

⁸⁰ However, two other contributions are significant in this context: Le Play's, for his emphasis on the role of family, which in Perroux, as in Marshall, is considered as a fundamental community (1942a, 110) in a progressive society; and Chevalier's who underlines the necessary role of the state for the supply of crucial public services (see below).

⁸¹ Saint-Simon as well highlights the link between « poverty » and (moral, physical) « feebleness »; he clarifies: “le manque d'instruction et de santé se montre dans ses projets. Son imprévoyance et sa faiblesse seraient bientôt la cause de sa propre destruction, si on l'abandonnait à ses inspirations” (Gurvitch 1965, 32).

⁸² In 1893, before the Royal Commission of the Aged Poor, Marshall claimed “I have devoted myself for the last twenty years to the problem of poverty, and …. very little of my work has been devoted to any inquiry which does not bear on that” (Keynes 1926, 205)

⁸³ “La pauvreté allait d'ordinaire avec la faiblesse. La notion de pauvre appelait la notion de faible” (1961a, 506).

⁸⁴ “C'est l'idée englobante de l’économie de l'homme, entendue comme l’économie de tout l'homme et l’économie de tous les hommes. Économie de tout l'homme veut dire que l’être humain entier est accueilli avec ses mobiles allocentriques et ses mobiles égocentriques....Économie des tous les hommes signifie économie des tous les êtres humains vivants” (1961a, 511–512).

⁸⁵ According to Perroux, progress expresses itself in terms of freedom (“le progrés s'exprime en terms de liberté”, 1967, 64). In Marshall, freedom is a very important element: it is a necessary part of his “Ye Machine”, along with a certain number of routines (Raffaelli 1994, 2005; Caldari 2015) but moreover it is something that each individual should have in order to express his/her own potentialities, capacities, free from bounds that may limit and check that creative energy that characterizes human beings. In a letter to bishop Westcott on 20 January 1901, he firmly states: “In my view Freedom is life” (Whitaker 1996, vol. II, 293–295). An analogous assertion of the importance of freedom is emphasised by Saint-Simon in all his writings (Gurvitch 1965).

⁸⁶ Marshall uses a very similar term, with the same meaning and substance of Perroux's “épanouissement”: that of “ to spring”. The following quotation is just an example out of several similar passages: “Economists have accordingly now learnt to take a larger and more hopeful view of the possibilities of human progress. They have learnt to trust that the human will, guided by careful thought, can so modify circumstances as largely to modify character; and thus to bring about new conditions of life still more favourable: to character; and therefore to the economic, as well as the moral, well-being of the masses of the people. Now as ever it is their duty to oppose all plausible short cuts to that great end, which would sap the springs of energy and initiative” (1920, 48).

⁸⁷ “L’économie humaine propose la satisfaction des besoins fondamentaux de tous, le maximum de liberté concrètement vécue par chaque être humain, pour attendre le but de l’épanouissement des toutes les virtualités de l'homme en chaque homme” (1961a, 399).

⁸⁸ Accordingly, in his analysis, Perroux distinguishes between (overall) “Progress” and (wealth, material)“progresses”. The latter does not imply necessarily and automatically the former.

⁸⁹ “...un ensemble de forces qui accroissent cumulativement la disposition de ressources matérielles nécessaires à l’épanouissement des tous les hommes et de l'homme total en chacun d'eux” (1961a, 195).

⁹⁰ “Elle est irrationnelle, l’économie qui accepte la destruction des ressources potentielles, des objets utiles, mais combien plus l’économie qui accepterait le gaspillage, l'amoindrissement, l'avilissement des êtres humains” (1961a, 359).

⁹¹ “Nous ne sommes pas riches seulement de ce que nous gagnons, mais du soleil que de larges baies laissent pénétrer dans nos lieux d'habitation ou de travail, de l'air pur qui circule dans des rues spacieuses, du square coquet que nous pouvons fouler. Nous sommes riches de la bonne humeur communicative et de la joie de vivre de nos compagnons de travail, riches au sens propre du mot de la santé d'autrui, de son équilibre mental, de sa résistance” (1943, 33).

⁹² It is possible to discern here another possible influence of Le Play who gave large emphasis to local milieus and the importance of territorial organisation. Le Play greatly inspired Lebret who gave particular attention to the effects of urbanisation on the “épanoussement human” (Bévant 2014) and Benoit-Levy who introduced in France the Garden City Association, a phenomenon first developed in England and that Benoit-Levy experienced directly during his visits to Letchworh and other realities. Marshall himself – admirer and reader of Le Play – was very much involved into the Garden City movement and the Society for Promoting Industrial villages (Caldari 2004).

⁹³ “L’éducation le moyen du plein emploi de toutes les ressources humaines latentes” (1961a, 165).

⁹⁴ Besides the state, an important relevance is given to trade unions and syndicates that they have deeply inquired into their functioning, potentialities and limits according to a very similar perspective. Marshall considers trade unions as very important means to educate and to give people an important “esprit de corps”; he appreciates them especially for their efforts to raise workers’ “standard of life and character as much as their wages” (1920, 703). He is however critical when trade unions aim at imposing rigid and bureaucratic rules. Perroux considers syndicates as a centre for social and moral education (1938b, 47) and an important factor of civilisation (1938b, 50). However, as they are representatives of particular categories (1930), state intervention is nonetheless necessary in order to harmonise the opposite interests (1938b, 49).

⁹⁵ Perroux deeply criticises Pigou's approach to welfare, in so far as it is static and unconnected with history, time, and development (1961b, 31) and it is focused only on the monetary quantifiable dimension (1960, 113; 1984, 103); he moreover stresses how Pigou neglected the important insights given by his master Marshall on the existence and urgency to hold a wider perspective especially when dealing with questions of welfare. Robertson on the contrary is considered as the one who has followed Marshall's legacy on this field (1960, 113–114). It is interesting to note that Perroux's critiques of Pigou are indeed the same Marshall himself expressed (Bharadwaj 1972) and that are well synthetised in the following words written to Pigou “I'm charmed by the brilliancy...of your book. But I am also frightened. I'm certain that almost everything you say is true, with the qualifications that are latent in your mind: but some of them seem to me in danger of misleading people who do not know the ropes of economic complex interactions” (Whitaker 1996, III, 332–333). The meaning of these lines is well clarified in Principles: “The statical theory of equilibrium ... is barely even an introduction to the study of the progress and development ... Its limitations are so constantly overlooked, especially by those who approach it from an abstract point of view, that there is a danger in throwing it in definite form at all.” (1920, 461).

⁹⁶ “Coûts de l'homme signifient... coûts prioritaires assumés par une puissance publique au sein d'un group humain déterminé, pour assurer à tous les êtres humains les conditions fondamentales de leur vie” (1961a, 305).

⁹⁷ “C'est lui [le pouvoir politique] qui , dans sa sphère, protège les hommes de l'envahissement du marché, les met dans des conditions favorables pour résister à la ‘mercantilisation’ de l’être humain...” (1973a, 129).

⁹⁸ “Il existe un lieu géométrique des convergences des projets et des activités tant politiques qu’économiques: c'est le développement plénier de La Ressource Humaine” (1973a, 135).

⁹⁹ Perroux's collegue and friend (Perroux 1938c) Henry Guitton significantly casts: “Peu d'auteurs, sans doute, ont été autant lus et aussi mal compris que Marshall. On l'invoque surtout à propos des analyses mécaniques et des équilibres partiels. En vérité, il voyait non dans les mathématiques ou les sciences physiques, mais dans la biologie le véritable guide de la science économique, qui est fondamentalement une science de la vie” (1951, 153).

Additional information

Funding

Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme (Paris): Associate Research Directors Programme (DEA).