Author
Abstract
Alfred Marshall’s treatment of cooperation includes a confusing mix of approbatory and disparaging positions. Cooperation is praised for aiming to “regenerat[e] the world by restraining the cruel force of competition,†but its aspirations are reportedly “higher than its practice.†The article uncovers two reasons for this tension. Firstly, the tension is an effect of two different modes of engagement, namely an ethical commitment to the universal cultivation of desirable forms of character through work (the explicit goal of cooperation), and a pragmatic analysis of the comparative economic benefits of organizational types (leading to a diagnosis of cooperation’s limitations). Secondly, the tension is also an outcome of reflection on the historical development of British cooperatives. The prevalence of consumer (rather than productive) cooperatives in nineteenth-century Britain leads Marshall to doubt the ability of cooperation to cultivate character. The article then provides a conceptual presentation of three interrelated concepts of cooperation in Marshall’s work—cooperative ethics, cooperative organization, and constructive cooperation—of which the latter two forms are shown to be evaluated with reference to the extent to which they promote the principles of the first. It is shown that whereas the early Marshall speaks highly of the explicitly ethical nature of cooperative organization, the later Marshall is increasingly attentive, first, to the failure of cooperative organization to achieve its ethical goal, and second, to certain unintended ethical benefits of competitive constructive cooperation (a form of industrial organization oriented toward reciprocal mutual profit). In closing, the paper considers the significance of Marshall’s work for a recent set of debates reflecting renewed interest in cooperative production.
Suggested Citation
Miriam Bankovsky, 2018.
"Alfred Marshall on Cooperation: Restraining the Cruel Force of Competition,"
History of Political Economy, Duke University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 49-81, March.
Handle:
RePEc:hop:hopeec:v:50:y:2018:i:1:p:49-81
DOI: 10.1215/00182702-4335009
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hop:hopeec:v:50:y:2018:i:1:p:49-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Center for the History of Political Economy Webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?viewby=journal&productid=45614 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.