La fin du XIXe siècle, vue par les historiens de la pensée économique

The period dominated by Smith and Ricardo become far more complicated to explain after the 1870?s, when economists in general, and especially, among them, those most interested in the history of their own science, have the feeling that this period is no longer theirs. The latter, formally known as ?modern? or ?scientific?, becomes ?classical?, which means it has come to an end. Historians start to ask themselves anew when the classical school really began and how to explain its birth, evidently promoting the school most worthy of taking over. Those who preach continuity, both in methods and analyses, keep on asserting that all began with Smith and that his merit was to replace erroneous ?systems? with a real science. The critical historians, and they are the majority since the 1870?s, believe the classical thought stems from long before. They invoke external explanations, coming for instance from the philosophical background ? with the idea of natural law?, or from the history of economic facts ? with the birth of great industry. According to these critical historians, the death of the classical school was linked to the condition of its own birth in a way. Therefore, it vanished when observing the facts and the necessity of historians to do so became obvious needs, or when capitalism?s face changed. The historians of economic thought have far more difficulties in describing the situation that prevails since the end of the classical school. Prudence dominates most of the writings published before the 1930?s. The general method consists in presenting separately the different schools between which posterity may hesitate, whether national or methodological, theoretical or political.