艾爾弗雷德•馬歇爾：重視歷史意識的經濟學家

Abstract

艾爾弗雷德•馬歇爾(Alfred Marshall, 1842-1924)為英國新古典經濟學(Neo-classical economy )、劍橋學派理論創建者，他的經濟學理論介於亞當•斯密(Adam Smith)國富論以來的古典政治經濟學(Political economy)與二十世紀純粹數理經濟學之間，帶有濃厚的人文與歷史氣息。相對於現代經濟學家追求理論模型的建構，馬歇爾以及與他同時代的經濟學家們更傾向於解決實際的社會問題。因此十九世紀的經濟學思想朝向兩個方向邁進：一是以傑文茲(William Stanley Jevons)、埃奇沃斯(Francis Ysidro Edgeworth)邊際學派經濟學家為主軸，將李嘉圖(David Ricardo)、馬爾薩斯(Thomas Robert Malthus)模糊的理論模型，賦以高度抽象化的數學公式，建立現代經濟學中以圖表分析與效用計算的理論方法，締造了主流經濟學，其影響力一直持續到當代；二是以理查德•瓊斯(Richard Jones)、湯恩比(Arnold Toynbee)、艾希利(William James Ashley)等歷史經濟學家為首，他們借重德國歷史主義(German Historicism)的研究取向，強調經濟學研究不能離開歷史分析，批評古典經濟學抽象理論模型與現實脫節的情形，產生了十九世紀末至二十世紀初經濟學思想發展史上一次重要的史學運動。十九世紀末，無論英國或者歐陸國家皆面臨了嚴重的問題，他們一方面於外部受到國際局勢紛亂的影響，一方面於內部則發生經濟衰退及與之而來的工會運動，維多利亞時代樂觀主義和孔德所提倡的理性進步觀念，以及邊沁所提倡的效益主義(utilitarianism)和自由主義(liberalism)等右派思維，此時已然鬆動。若我們拉一條譜線來看，此時期的歷史學家有逐漸向左靠攏的趨勢，形成了一批悲觀史家(Pessimist)，他們的尖銳意見，使立場偏向右派的經濟學家也不得不重新思考經濟學的本質並適時調整路線。 本文主要研究劍橋經濟學家馬歇爾在面臨十九世紀末的經濟、政治與學術的混亂時，如何以其豐富的歷史意識融合經濟學理論並成功開創了一個新的綜合。本文也將具體地呈現馬歇爾如何以其綜合的經濟學理論回應當時流行的社會主義思潮以及他對大英帝國政府貿易、財政政策提出的建議和結果，說明他融通的思維與理論不僅可以實際運用於十九世紀末的歐洲，對當代全球經濟政策與經濟學理論的發展亦深具啟發性。

Alfred Marshall is a creator and founder of English neo-classical economics and Cambridge School. His economic theory lies between the theory of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nation and the purely mathematical economics in 20th century, containing plenty of humanism and historical thoughts. Comparing to most modern economists’ desire of pursuing of mathematical models, Marshall were more interesting in finding ‘practical’ ways to solve realistic social problems. Therefore, the economic theory in 19th century was toward to two different ways at the same time. One is led by W. S. Jevons and Francis Ysidro Edgeworth. They rewrote and clarified the fussy models and laws raised by David Ricardo and T. R. Malthus, and provided mathematical foundations and clear demonstrations (but still abstract) to classical economic theory. They created some terms and tools for economic analysis, like ‘indifference curve’ and ‘marginal analytical methods’ used in modern economics. The other is guided by some historians and economists, for example, Richard Jones, Arnold Toynbee and William James Ashley. They relied on German historical theory (i. e. German Historism) to criticize the mistakes and defects of classical economics, especially the Grenznutze School (Australian Marginal School). They emphasized that all economists cannot neglect the reality. There cannot be without history in economic research, or the conclusions made by them were nothing but imaginations. Their efforts made a potent historical reaction in the evolution and development of economic thoughts in the nineteenth century. In the late 19th century, both British Isles and the continent of Europe faced crisis. On the one hand, they confronted international chaos in politics and economics; on the other hand, there were domestic economic depression happened, then accompanied with a series of strikes and social movements. The optimism of Victorian Age, progressive idealism from Auguste Comte and Bentham’s Utilitarianism had been wavered. If we pull a thread straight and put it on a spectrum, we can find that many historian and economists went LEFT, and more and more thinkers became Pessimists in this period. This thesis represents the Cambridge economist Alfred Marshall’s great reflections on the age, and how he combined the two different approaches in economic theory to create a new synthesis, especially his rich historical thoughts in economic writings; furthermore, at the fifth chapter, this essay introduces concretely how Marshall applied his economic and historical thoughts to socialism and economic policies of British empire.