Menu Expand

The Curious Case of the Three Adam Smiths: Women and the Nobel Prize in Economics

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. Online First
  5. pp. 1–16

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Santori, P. The Curious Case of the Three Adam Smiths: Women and the Nobel Prize in Economics. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 99999(), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.380511
Santori, Paolo "The Curious Case of the Three Adam Smiths: Women and the Nobel Prize in Economics" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 99999., 2024, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.380511
Santori, Paolo (2024): The Curious Case of the Three Adam Smiths: Women and the Nobel Prize in Economics, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 99999, iss. , 1-16, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.380511
Format
Download

The Curious Case of the Three Adam Smiths: Women and the Nobel Prize in Economics

Santori, Paolo

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. (2024), Online First : pp. 1–16

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.2024.380511
Language
Multiple languages
Pages
16
Keywords

Author Details

Paolo Santori, Department of Philosophy, Tilburg University Warandelaan 2 5037 AB Tilburg, Netherlands

References

  1. Ashraf, N., C. F. Camerer, and G. Loewenstein. 2005. “Adam Smith, Behavioral Economist.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 19 (3): 131 – 45.  Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1984. Complete Works of Aristotle, Volume 2: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A. V. and A. F. Newman. 1994. “Poverty, Incentives, and Development.” The American Economic Review 84 (2): 211 – 215.  Google Scholar
  4. Bee, M. and M. P. Paganelli. 2019. “Adam Smith, Anti-Stoic.” History of European Ideas 45 (4): 572 – 84.  Google Scholar
  5. Bruni, L. and R. Sugden. 2008. “Fraternity: why the market need not be a morally free zone.” Economics & Philosophy 24 (1): 35 – 64.  Google Scholar
  6. Coman, K. (1911) 2011. “Some unsettled problems of irrigation.” American Economic Review 101 (1): 36 – 48.  Google Scholar
  7. Duflo, E. 2019a. “Banquet Speech.” Accessed November 3, 2023. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/duflo/speech/.  Google Scholar
  8. Duflo, E. 2019b. “Prize Lecture.” Accessed November 3, 2023. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2019/duflo/lecture/.  Google Scholar
  9. Evensky, J. 2005. “‘Chicago Smith’ versus ‘Kirkaldy Smith’.” History of Political Economy 37 (2): 197 – 203.  Google Scholar
  10. Ferber, M. A. and J. A. Nelson, eds. (1993) 2009. Beyond Economic Man: Feminist Theory and Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  12. Friedman, M. 1976. “Adam Smith’s Relevance for 1976.” Selected Paper No. 50: 1 – 19.  Google Scholar
  13. Goldin, C. 2023. “Prize Lecture.” Accessed January 4, 2024. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2023/goldin/lecture/.  Google Scholar
  14. Heath, E. 1995. “The commerce of sympathy: Adam Smith on the emergence of morals.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 33 (3): 447 – 66.  Google Scholar
  15. Hardin, G. 1968. “The tragedy of the commons: the population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.” Science 162 (3859): 1243 – 8.  Google Scholar
  16. Liu, G. M. 2020. “Rethinking the ‘Chicago Smith’ Problem: Adam Smith and the Chicago School, 1929 – 1980.” Modern Intellectual History 17 (4): 1041 – 68.  Google Scholar
  17. Lorde, A. (1979) 2018. The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. UK: Penguin Classics.  Google Scholar
  18. MacIntyre, A. (1981) 2007. After Virtue. London: Duckworth.  Google Scholar
  19. Marçal, K. (2015) 2017. Who Cooked Adam Smith’s Dinner: A Story About Women and Economics. London: Portobello Books.  Google Scholar
  20. Medema, S. G. 2010. “Adam Smith and the Chicago School.” In The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics, edited by R. Emmett, 40 – 51. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  21. Montes, L. 2003. “Das Adam Smith Problem: Its origins, the stages of the current debate, and one implication for our understanding of sympathy.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25 (1): 63 – 90.  Google Scholar
  22. Montes, L. 2008. “Adam Smith as an eclectic Stoic.” Adam Smith Review 4: 30 – 56.  Google Scholar
  23. Nelson, J. A. 1995. “Feminism and economics.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (2): 131 – 48.  Google Scholar
  24. Nobel Prize Committee. 2023. “Press Release.” Accessed November 3, 2023. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2023/press-release/.  Google Scholar
  25. Oslington, P. 2011. Adam Smith as theologian (Vol. 14). London: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  26. Ostrom, E. 2009a. “Facts.” Accessed November 3, 2023. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/ostrom/facts/.  Google Scholar
  27. Ostrom, E. 2009b. “Prize Lecture.” Accessed November 3, 2023. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/ostrom/lecture/.  Google Scholar
  28. Ostrom, E. 2011. “Reflections on ‘some unsettled problems of irrigation’.” American Economic Review 101 (1): 49 – 63.  Google Scholar
  29. Ricardo, D. (1821) 2004. “Ricardo to Mcculloch.” Letter 416 dated 17 January 1821. In Correspondence, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. VIII, edited by Piero Sraffa. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  30. Rothschild, E. 1994. “Adam Smith and the invisible hand.” The American Economic Review 84 (2): 319 – 22.  Google Scholar
  31. Seccombe, W. 1986. “Patriarchy stabilized: The construction of the male breadwinner wage norm in nineteenth‐century Britain.” Social History 11 (1): 53 – 76.  Google Scholar
  32. Sen, A. 2011. “Uses and Abuses of Adam Smith.” Journal of History of Political Economy 43 (2): 257 – 71.  Google Scholar
  33. Smith, A. (1759) 1982. The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS), Glasgow Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  34. Smith, A. (1776) 1981. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (WN), 2 vols., Glasgow Edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.  Google Scholar
  35. Smith, V. L. 1998. “The Two Faces of Adam Smith.” Southern Economic Journal 65 (1): 1 – 19.  Google Scholar
  36. Slegers, R. 2021. “The Ethics and Economics of Middle Class Romance: Wollstonecraft and Smith on Love in Commercial Society.” The Journal of Ethics 25 (4): 525 – 42.  Google Scholar
  37. Stigler, G. J. 1971. “Smith’s Travels on the Ship of State.” History of Political Economy 3 (2): 265 – 77.  Google Scholar
  38. Stigler, G. J. 1976. “The successes and failures of Professor Smith.” Journal of Political Economy 84 (6): 1199 – 213.  Google Scholar
  39. Sugden, R. 2002. “Beyond sympathy and empathy: Adam Smith’s concept of fellow-feeling.” Economics & Philosophy 18 (1): 63 – 87.  Google Scholar
  40. Tribe, K. 1999. “Adam Smith: critical theorist?” Journal of Economic Literature 37 (2): 609 – 32.  Google Scholar
  41. Waszek, N. 1984. “Two concepts of morality: A distinction of Adam Smith’s ethics and its stoic origin.” Journal of the History of Ideas 45 (4): 591 – 606.  Google Scholar
  42. Young, J. T. 2006. “Adam Smith and new institutional theories of property rights.” The Adam Smith Review 2: 48 – 68.  Google Scholar

Abstract

On the 300th anniversary of his birth, one thing can be said about Adam Smith: entire libraries (real and digital) have been filled with analyses of his thought. This trend does not seem to be on the verge of ending soon. Everybody hopes to uncover the “real Smith.” This article has a more modest double aim. First, it intends to delineate three interpretations, or portraits, of Adam Smith’s thought in part of the recent literature: the self-interested Smith, the sympathetic Smith and the compatibilist Smith. The different colors used for each of these portraits of the Scottish thinker stand for the interpretations of his view on the moral nature of the market sphere. Second, I try to answer the question whether the three female Nobel laureates can be classified as “Smithian” scholars. By applying the categories elaborated within the three Smith portraits to the work of the three women who, so far, have won the Nobel Prize in Economics, I show that only the sympathetic Smith can be considered a feminist economist. He could therefore be viewed as an ally for the feminist economics project.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Paolo Santori: The Curious Case of the Three Adam Smiths: Women and the Nobel Prize in Economics 1
1. Introduction 1
2. The Three Adam Smiths 3
2.1 The Self-Interested Smith 4
2.2 The Sympathetic Smith 5
2.3 The Compatibilist Smith 6
3. The Three Smiths Meet Three Female Nobel Laureates 8
3.1 Elinor Ostrom 8
3.2 Esther Duflo 9
3.3 Claudia Goldin 11
3.4 Discussion 12
4. Final Remarks 14
References 14

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.