1

Gruchy 1972 1939

Ⅴ 19201960 ibid. 18♣ ぜ

Tsuru 1993, ch.5

1)

っⅤ

♣ ├ っみ

ibid. 73 ゼ 115 ┊ ♣

ぜ

♣ ♣ ♣

っ

モ 2004, 116 ぜ 1940

ぜよ

2) ┊ 1920 30

㈳ ㈳ フ て

Angresano 1997, 154 ┘

Ⅴ さ ╉

┞

よ

2

モ

1 1929 30

3 3) 19301

1927

1931 ∟ 1939 1 2

㌹ 1929 30

さ ザ

┊

10

DC ザ

リ

ザ 4)

Myrdal 1972, 6 ゼ 81930 ゝ ス

ibid. 7 ゼ 8-9モ

3

さ

DC さ

ふ ㊰ ふ

↓

↓

ふ

2004, 176 177 ㊰

C.

Myrdal 1958, 254さ

Myrdal 1958, 254: Myrdal 1972, 7 ゼ 9

Adair 1992, 167

さ っⅤ

ぜ っⅤ

Myrdal 1972, 134 ゼ 137

Myrdal 1958, 254 5) フ 6)

ぜ ザ [] ♣

Jackson 1990, 62, [ ]

↓

Ⅵ

っ

レ

♣ ┘ ㌹

1920

4

♣ ♣

─ ibid. 647)

1931 6♣

1932 ♣

2 ㌹ 2

Myrdal 1978, 772 1 1930 ♣

2 1938 44

19302

1933フ

♣

∟ 1934Myrdal 1933

8) ♣ ㊰

さ ♣

よ

よ さ

∞

↓

さ

9) ス

1936 38

5

Jackson 1990, 81-87 1938 2 ┘

ス

21944 ∟ ぞ

Myrdal 1978, 772 ㌹

さ [ ]

↓

Angresano 1997, 152 [ ]

さ ふ ㊰

よ ♣

さ ㊰

Ⅴ

6

㊰

2003

さ

ふⅤ

っみ

ふ ㊰

10)

っⅤ

ば

Jackson 1990, 41-43さ

“Enlightenment” ❻ 11

㈻

A. Hägerströmふ

┷

♣

2002, 5 ふ value

ふ フ valuationbelief フ

さ っⅤ

Myrdal 1990, 13 ゼ 23

7

Ⅴ て

Myrdal 1958, 251

12) さ

ぜ

1933 ┘ よ

13) 2Myrdal 1958, 255

∟

さ

ぜ Ⅴ っⅤ

ぜ 1939

2 1

Myrdal 1990, 32フ ibid. 1031

さ オ

♣ フ

Ⅴ て

♣ フ ㍇っ

Myrdal 1972, 134 ゼ 136 2 ㌱

㈳ 192930

┞ 2 Jackson(1990)

1939∟ ♣ ㈻

ぜ ♣

♣

8

Jackson 1990, 106

14)

Adair (1992, 169-170) 々

ぜよ

フ

ふ ㊰

├

Angresano 1997, 163

ば 15) 2

┞

♣

Myrdal 1978, 775: 1982, 313

Ⅴ

Ⅴ

さ ♣

♣

♣

さ ┘

さ Myrdal 1978, 773-774: 1982, 312

Ⅴ

9

2ふ

↓

♣ よ ♣

さ さ さ

ぜ

Ⅴ

Myrdal 1976a, 215 16)

㊰ よ

2004, 32, 36♣

♣ っⅤ

っⅤ

ゝ

ぞ ぞ

♣

々

Myrdal 1972, 139 ゼ 142 よ

♣

ふ

Ⅵ

ぜよ

♣ っ

さ

10

17)

Myrdal 1966, 67

♣

↓ Ⅵ

‹

┞

Ⅵ

↓

Ⅵ 18) ↓ Ⅴ

㌱ 19)

ぞ

ぜ

Myrdal 1957, ch.12

フ

Myrdal 1978, 778 ┘

フ ┘

Myrdal 1972, 150-151 ゼ 153

フ

っ

11

1981

㈻ ㌹

Myrdal 1976b, 84 ゼ 166 さ

┘

フ

Myrdal 1978, 779

フ

Myrdal 1976b, 85ゼ 168

ぜ

Myrdal, 1978, 773

[ さ さ

]さ ぜ

Myrdal 1972, 142-143 ゼ 145 [ ]

Ⅴ 1980new institutional economics

Ⅴ J. S.

20)

21)

ibid. vii ゼ 3 ㈻

12

々

々

Mill 1992, 131 ゼ 351

㈻

ゝ ibid. 132 ゼ 352

Myrdal 1976b, 85 ゼ 167 ♣ ┷

♣

┷

フ フ フ

♣ ♣

├ Myrdal 1969, 41 ゼ 67

Ⅴ

フ ぜ

さ

┑

Myrdal 1976b, 85 ゼ 167

Myrdal 1976a, 215: 1978, 771

っ

↓ ㈻ Ⅴ

♣ ふ ふ

♣ ♣

フ

13

♣ Ⅴ Myrdal 1976b, 84 ゼ 166 Ⅴ 2

♣

┘

㈻

♣

さ

っⅤ ♣

㎲ ㎲

Dykema 1986, 157 ㎲

㎲ ♣ ♣

♣ ゝ

♣

♣ ぜ

♣

っ

14

┘ ┘

22 1980 っ

っ ♣ 23) っ

Ⅴ ↓

1 4Ⅴ 1ぜ 2

㊪

っ 3 ゝ ♣

さ 4 ♣

┘ ┘ ぞ

Tsuru 1993, 73 ゼ 114-115 2

2002, 210 212 15Ⅴ 3 2 3 Angresano(1997)

GM 1915-33 GM 1929-38 GM 1938-87 12 々 2 1 3

4 ♣

P. T. ば

㈳ ㎲ ㊪ レ

Jackson(1990) pp.59-64 5 フ

1927よ ┞

々 Mitchell 1927, 470 ゼ 655

6 1919-20J. H. Åkerman り

㊰ レ

Carlson(1999) Hodgson(2004, 153)ぜ

15

7 Jackson(1990, 64)

㊰ ぜ

Cherry(1995) 8 1930 の

19321933 ∟ ♣ ゝ

Appelqvist and Andersson 2005, 86-87 9 Angresano 1997, 152

さ

さ

10 1994 2003 11

Ⅴ 2007 p.235 々

さ 12 1980 レ 13 Myrdal (1958) Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und

Sozialpolitik↓

Myrdal (1958) p.255 14 っⅤ 2004 Bush(1993)

ぞ

ッ フ Hodgson(1993) 15 Bush(1993)

2 Bush 1993, 97-98 ぜ

16 よ フ

Kapp(1976) よ

フ Kapp 1976, 83 17 ♣ ㌹

12 ♣ ♣

Myrdal 1966, 65 ↓

♣ 18 Hodgson(2003, 562-563) ↓

よ

19 Myrdal(1966) ッ

ふ

20

16

Myrdal (1972) p.10ゼ p.12

21 Mill [1844] 1992 22 ┞ Ⅴ

Ⅴ ㈻

Mitchell 1950, 40

ふ

Myrdal 1957, 160-161 ゼ 197 23 transdisciplinary

っ

Myrdal 1972, 16 ゼ 19

Adair, P. 1992. Myrdal and Institutionalism: From Rejection to Acceptance, in

Dostaler et al. (eds) 1992. Gunnar Myrdal and His Works, Montreal: Harvest House.

Angresano, J. 1997. The Political Economy of Gunnar Myrdal: An Institutional Basis for the Transformation Problem, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Appelqvist, Ö. and S. Andersson (ed) 2005. Essential Myrdal, New York: The New Press.

Bush, P. D. 1993. The Methodology of Institutional Economics: A Pragmatic Instrumentalist Perspective, in Tool (ed.) 1993.

Carlson, B. 1999. The Institutional Ideas Virus: The Case of Johan Åkerman, The European Journal of History of Economic Thought, 6(1): 71-86.

Cherry, R. 1995. The Culture-of-Poverty Thesis and African Americans: The Work of Gunnar Myrdal and Other Institutionalists, Journal of Economic Issues, XXIX(4): 1119-1132.

Commons, J. R. [1934] 1961. Institutional Economics, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. [1950] 1970. The Economics of Collective Action, Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. ゼ 1958

Dewey, J. 1963 [1939]. Freedom and Culture, New York: Capricorn Books. ゼ

♣ 2002 Dykema, E. R. 1986. No View without a Viewpoint: Gunnar Myrdal, World

Development, 14(2): 147-163. Gruchy, A. 1972. Contemporary Economic Thought: The Contribution of

17

Neo-Institutional Economics, New York: Augustus M. Kelly. Hodgson, G. M. 1993. Commentary by Geoffrey M. Hodgson, in Tool (ed.) 1993.

2003. John R. Commons and the Foundation of Institutional Economics, Journal of Economic Issues, XXXVII(3): 547-576. 2004. The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism, London: Routledge.

Jackson, W. A. 1990. Gunnar Myrdal and America’s Conscience, Chapell Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

Kapp, K. W. 1976. In Defense of Institutionalism, in Huppes, T. (ed) 1976. Economics and Sociology: Towards an Integration, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Social Sciences Division.

Mill, J. S. [1844] 1992. Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, Bristol: Thoemmes Press. ゼ モ

J S 4 1997 Mitchell, W. C. 1927. Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting, New York:

National Bureau of Economic Research. ゼ ス

1961 [1925] 1950. Quantitative Analysis in Economic Theory, in Mitchell [1937] 1950. The Backward Art of Spending Money, New York: Augustus M. Kelly.

Myrdal, G. 1933. The Cost in Living in Sweden: 1830-1930, Stockholm: Norstedt and Söner. 1957. Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions, London: Gerald Duckworth

ゼ ♣ 1959 1958. Value in Social Theory, London: Routledge Kegan Paul. 1966. The Social Sciences and Their Impact on Society, in Okada, M. (ed) 1973. Essays and Lectures, Kyoto: Keibunsha. 1972. Against the Stream: Critical Essays on Economics, New York: Pantheon.

├ ゼ ♣ 1975 1976a. Remarks upon Receipt of the Veblen-Commons Award, Journal of

Economic Issues, X(2): 215-216. 1976b. The Meaning and Validity of Institutional Economics, in Dopfer, K. (ed) Economics in the Future: Towards a New Paradigm, London: Macmillan.

┐ゼ 1978 1978. Institutional Economics, Journal of Economic Issues, XII(4): 771-783. 1981. What is Political Economy?, Solo, A. and C. W. Anderson (eds) 1981. Value Judgment and Income Distribution, New York: Praegar. 1982. Political Economy and Institutional versus Conventional Economics, in Feiwel, G. R. (ed) Samuelson and Neoclassical Economics, Boston: Kluwer. [1930] 1990. The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory. New Brunswick: Transaction. ゼ さ ♣

18

1967 [1944] 1996. An American Dilemma (with a new introduction by Sissela Bok), New Brunswick: Transaction.

Tool, M. R. (ed) 1993. Institutional Economics: Theory, Method, Policy, Boston: Kluwer.

Tsuru, S. 1993. Institutional Economics Revisited, The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. ゼ

1999 2004 . 2002. ∟

2004. ″ ∟ 2002. ∟

2003. 51(2): 63-81. 2007. ♣

∟ 1980. G.

1994.

19

Myrdal as an “Institutional Economist” Nanako Fujita

Gunnar Myrdal became an “institutional economist” when he wrote An American

Dilemma. In this book, he established his own methodological and theoretical framework: the methodology of “explicit value premises” and the theory of cumulative causation. The aim of this paper is analyzing Myrdal’s “institutional economics” and comparing

it with American institutional school. The meaning of Myrdal’s “institutional economics” has been made clear mainly by the comparison with “conventional economics”. Though this point is still very important, we take one more step forward. The methodology of “explicit value premises” was established after his long consideration. In his high school days, Myrdal learnt Enlightenment thought. When he started methodological study, he was influenced by Axel Hägerström and Max Weber. In 1939, he met Dewey’s Freedom and Culture. His methodological transition from The Political Element in the Development of Economic Theory to An American Dilemma can be explained by Dewey’s pragmatism. In consequence, it is natural to find some similarities between Myrdal’s methodology and American institutional school’s. Myrdal said that the theory of cumulative causation was the “master model” of the institutional economics. The spatial theory of cumulative causation followed Kapp’s analysis of “open system”. He analyzed “non-economic factors” as well as “economic factors”. Another meaning was temporal. Myrdal had Veblenian theory of cumulative causation, but he was also keen on social reform like Commons. His focus was put on “scientific knowledge” and its diffusion. Myrdal insisted that “institutional economics” meant both “political economy” and “evolutionary economics”. His idea was very unique.

B25, B31, B52