![]() ![]() ![]() Perhaps one hearing is all a theory is entitled to, but one may plead that Ricardo deserves at least a rehearing–his theory is relatively more widely misunderstood today than it was in his lifetime. If a theory once acquires an established meaning, each generation of economists bequeaths this meaning to the next, and it is almost impossible for a famous theory to get a fresh hearing. The basic reason Ricardo’s theory is often misinterpreted is that it was often misinterpreted in the past. Stigler, commenting briefly on the importance of the fame and reputation of ideas in their historical transmission, remarked on the difficulty for scholars of ever being able to give a second chance to ideas that have been initially misjudged: ![]() Top of pageġ In a famous 1958 article on Ricardo’s theory of value, the American economist George J. A careful reading of both sources, as well as a close examination of the handling of Spence’s text by Howard, reveal that, in order to import certain aspects of the Land Plan into his own concept, the latter took with the former’s ideas liberties that verge on intellectual betrayal. As such, it seems difficult to reconcile with Spence’s revolutionary ideas, which include the dispossession of land-owners as well as the ownership and control of all parish land by democratic parish corporations. Howard’s project is rather socially conservative and based on class collaboration, inter-individual co-operation and mutual aid, all within an appeased version of capitalism (the original title of his book was To-morrow! A Peaceful Path to Real Reform until 1902). After characterising the social and political meaning of Spence’s “plan” and examining the content of the “unique combination of proposals” that is the Garden City in theory, the article seeks to explore how Howard’s borrowing from Spence takes part in an attempt to answer the so-called “land question” that runs through the 18 th and 19 th centuries. One of these sources is the famous “Land Plan” of the revolutionary radical Thomas Spence (1750-1814). Une lecture attentive des deux textes, et un examen rapproché de l’usage de celui de Spence par Howard, montre qu’afin d’intégrer certains aspects du plan foncier dans son montage conceptuel, le second a pris avec la pensée du premier certaines libertés qui ressemblent à de la trahison intellectuelle.Įbenezer Howard, the father of the “Garden City” idea, explains in one of the concluding chapters of his Garden Cities of To-morrow (1898) that his concept is only the combination of three pre-existing ideas in the area of land and urban reform. Elle semble difficilement conciliable avec les idées révolutionnaires de Spence, dont le plan foncier se fondait sur l’expropriation des grands propriétaires terriens et l’appropriation des terres par des municipalités démocratiques fondées sur les paroisses. Après avoir caractérisé le sens social et politique du « plan » de Spence, et examiné le contenu de la « combinaison unique de propositions » qu’est en théorie la cité-jardin, le présent article s’attache à examiner comment l’emprunt de Howard à Spence s’inscrit dans un projet de réponse à la « question foncière » qui traverse les 18 e et 19 e siècles. La tentative de Howard est plutôt socialement conservatrice et fondée sur la collaboration des classes, la coopération inter-individuelle et le mutualisme, dans le cadre d’un capitalisme apaisé (le titre original de son ouvrage était Demain ! Une voie paisible vers la réforme jusqu’en 1902). L’une de ces sources est le « plan foncier » (« Land Plan ») du radical révolutionnaire Thomas Spence (1750-1814). Ebenezer Howard, le père de l’idée de “cité-jardin », explique à la fin de son ouvrage Les cités-jardins de demain ( Garden Cities of To-morrow 1898) que son concept n’est rien d’autre que la combinaison de trois idées préexistantes dans le domaine de la réforme agraire et urbaine. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |