IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/qjecon/v65y1951i4p492-524..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Monopoly Theory Prior to Adam Smith: A Revision

Author

Listed:
  • Raymond de Roover

Abstract

First, I put downe for a Maxime that all Monapolies have bin condemned by all politique men and in all well governed Comonweales, as a cause of all dearth and scarcetie in the same, contrarie to the nature and kinde of all Societies, which first growe into Townes and Cities to lie in safetie and to leve in plentie and cheapnes. — A Discourse of Corporations (1587–89?). I. Introduction, 492. — II. The monopoly theory of the Doctors, 495. — III. Monopoly theory and economic policy, 501. — IV. Post-Scholastic monopoly theories, 508. — V. Conclusions, 522.

Suggested Citation

  • Raymond de Roover, 1951. "Monopoly Theory Prior to Adam Smith: A Revision," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 65(4), pages 492-524.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:qjecon:v:65:y:1951:i:4:p:492-524.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1882577
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vikas Kumar, 2012. "Cartels in the Kautiliya Arthasastra," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 6(1), pages 59-79, March.
    2. Clara Jace, 2019. "An economic theory of economic analysis: the case of the School of Salamanca," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 375-397, December.
    3. Toms, J.S., 2010. "Calculating profit: A historical perspective on the development of capitalism," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 205-221, February.
    4. Nicola Giocoli, 2019. "The classical limits to police power and the economic foundations of the Slaughterhouse dissents," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 407-437, December.
    5. Trifilio Sylvain, 2018. "The Economic Theory of the Scholastics as a Contractual Analysis," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 24(1), pages 1-6, June.
    6. World Bank & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2017. "A Step Ahead," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 27527.
    7. Sabiou M. Inoua & Vernon L. Smith, 2020. "Adam Smith’s Theory of Value: A Reappraisal of Classical Price Discovery," Working Papers 20-10, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    8. Terence Kealey, 2022. "The Industrial Revolution as a collective action problem: The House of Commons games patents of monopoly, November 1601," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 418-441, October.
    9. Neri Salvadori & Rodolfo Signorino, 2014. "Adam Smith on Monopoly Theory. Making good a lacuna," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 61(2), pages 178-195, May.
    10. Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak, 2012. "Dreams of order and freedom : debating trade management early 17th century England," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG 457, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    11. Congleton, Roger D. & Lee, Sanghack, 2009. "Efficient mercantilism? Revenue-maximizing monopoly policies as Ramsey taxation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 102-114, March.
    12. Carlos Eduardo Suprinyak, 2009. "Merchants and councilors: intellectual divergences in early 17th century British economic thought," Textos para Discussão Cedeplar-UFMG td372, Cedeplar, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
    13. Nicola Giocoli, 2017. "Elevating Competition: Classical Political Economy in Justice Peckham’s Jurisprudence," Journal of Contextual Economics (JCE) – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, vol. 137(4), pages 331-370.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:qjecon:v:65:y:1951:i:4:p:492-524.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/qje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.