奈良産業大学経済学部創立10周年記念論文集(1994年11 月)
1
9
-
3
5
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
S
i
r
James S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
一一Afterthe Second World War to the present
(1992)一一*K
u
n
i
h
i
r
o
W
A
T
ANABE
1
.
Introduction
(1)
When we review s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on James S
t
e
u
a
r
t
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
Second World W
aì:,
we can
f
i
n
d
the two peaks i
n
t
h
i
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
about f
i
f
t
y
y
e
a
r
s
.
There were c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
b
l
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
(2)
i
n
t
h
e
1
9
6
0
'
s
and a
g
a
i
n
i
n
t
h
e
1
9
8
0
'
s
.
I
n
t
h
e
former
,
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
t
h
e
West-e
r
n
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
were done t
o
s
e
e
k
o
u
t
a
p
r
e
c
u
r
s
o
r
t
o
J
.
M. Keynes
(The E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
01 S
i
r
James S
t
e
u
a
r
t
by S
.
R
.
Sen
,
1
9
5
7
was t
y
p
i
c
a
l
o
f
these),
but i
n
t
h
i
s
c
o
u
n
ｭ
t
r
y
we c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
our a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
on h
i
s
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
‘
modern s
o
c
i
e
t
y
'
and h
i
s
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
and r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
h
i
s
main work
“
An I
n
q
u
i
r
y
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
01 P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
Oeconomy
,
1767"
,
because t
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
we c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
o
f
‘
modern society'
,‘
civil s
o
c
i
e
t
y
'
used by Adam Smith and h
i
s
c
o
n
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
e
s
someｭ
t
h
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
had never e
x
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
our country,
namely
,
a civilized,
u
n
m
i
l
i
t
a
r
i
s
t
i
c
and s
e
c
u
l
a
r
s
o
c
i
e
t
y
with no remnants o
f
f
e
u
d
a
l
i
s
m
.
This was c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
l
y
an
i
d
e
a
l
s
t
a
t
e
o
f
t
h
i
n
g
s
t
h
a
t
had t
o
be a
t
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
t
sometime. So we re
garde
d A.
Smith a
s
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
e
r
o
f
p
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
economy and made
e百ortst
o
understand t
h
e
c
o
r
e
o
f
h
i
s
economic theories,
t
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
o
f
value,
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
and accumulation,
and therefore
,
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
s
o
f
our s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
had been Books 1
& I
I
o
f
h
i
s
Princ争les.These f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
were n
o
t
o
n
l
y
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
;
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on t
h
e
B
r
i
t
i
s
h
c
l
a
s
s
i
c
a
l
economics i
n
our country had t
h
e
same angle
,
namely we thought
t
h
a
t
most o
f
t
h
e
economists i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
economics s
h
o
u
l
d
be e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
i
n
terms o
f
t
h
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
‘
civil s
o
c
i
e
t
y
'
and t
h
e
l
a
b
o
u
r
t
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
t
h
a
t
had
developed from Adam Smith through D
.
Ricardo and reached K
.
Marx a
t
t
h
e
i
r
*
T
h
i
s
p
a
p
e
r
was o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
e
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
E
s
s
a
y
s
i
n
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
0
1
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
h
o
u
g
h
t
(
1
9
9
2
)
i
n
c
o
m
m
e
m
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
4
0
t
h
a
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
Thouhgt o
f
J
a
p
a
n
.
1
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
e
d
i
t
i
n
t
o
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
a
n
d
a
d
d
e
d
a
b
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
p
y
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
i
t
.
(
1
)
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
u
n
t
i
l
1
9
7
2
c
a
n
e
a
s
i
l
y
b
e
t
r
a
c
e
d
b
y
a
b
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
a
t
t
h
e
b
a
c
k
o
f
Kawashima[ 9
J
.
S
i
n
c
e
t
h
e
n
u
p
t
o
now we c
a
n
e
n
u
m
e
r
a
t
e
a
b
o
u
t
1
4
0
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
.
S
e
e
a
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
.
(
2
) Y
a
m
a
s
a
k
i
S
a
t
o
s
h
i
・ AdamSmith--a
forward一一.(
i
n
S
u
g
i
h
a
r
a
[
2
4
]
)
s
h
o
w
e
d
a
n
e
x
p
e
r
i
m
ｭ
e
n
t
a
b
o
u
t
w
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
r
e
a
d
f
r
o
m
a
b
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
a
l
d
a
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
f
i
e
l
d
s
o
f
Adam S
m
i
t
h
.
We c
a
n
g
e
t
t
h
e
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
s
t
o
S
t
e
u
a
rt
.
peak
.
Compared t
o
t
h
e
above
,
Western s
c
h
o
l
a
r
s
i
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
James S
t
e
u
a
r
t
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
Adam S
i
n
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
1
9
8
0
'
s
.
But i
n
t
h
i
s
country,
on t
h
e
s
o
l
i
d
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
--studies on Books 1
&
1
1
o
f
h
i
s
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
-
-
w
h
i
c
h
had been b
u
i
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
phase
,
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
were s
t
e
a
d
i
l
y
spread o
u
t
t
o
Books 111
,
IV
,
and V o
f
t
h
e
Princiρles，and furthermore t
o
o
t
h
e
r
t
r
a
c
t
s
and extended even f
u
r
t
h
e
r
i
n
t
o
f
u
l
l
ｭ
s
c
a
l
e
work on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
'
s
academic backgrounds.
I
t
i
s
n
o
t
t
o
o
much t
o
say t
h
a
t
our s
t
u
d
i
e
s
a
r
e
supported by t
h
e
p
e
r
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
e旺ortst
o
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
t
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
t
e
x
t
o
f
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
.
1.The f
i
r
s
t
e
d
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
i
s
P
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
had
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
been reproduced i
n
November 1
9
5
7
by t
h
e
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
Economic Thought o
f
J
a
p
a
n
.
2
.
Many Japanese t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
Steuar
t's
works
have a
p
p
e
a
r
e
d
.
We
have t
h
r
e
e
Japanese v
e
r
s
i
o
n
s
(Books 1
&
1
1
)
o
f
t
h
e
PrinciPles
,
i.e.
,
Nakano T
a
d
a
s
h
i
'
s
(1967-80)
,
Kato Kazuo's
(19
8
0
-
8
2
)
and a
f
t
e
r
1
9
8
2
t
h
e
(la
t
e
r
s
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
)
attempt o
f
Maruyama
Hiro・ichi&
Suzuki Ryo.
Moreover
,
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
p
a
r
t
s
o
f
P
r
i
n
c
i
P
l
e
s
(Book 1
1
1
and after)
,
Maruｭ
yama
Hiro・ichis
t
a
r
t
e
d
from 1
9
7
3
t
o
1
9
7
5
(
b
u
t
d
i
d
n
o
t
completed it)
,
and f
i
n
a
l
l
y
Takemoto H
i
r
o
s
h
i
& s
i
x
o
t
h
e
r
s
c
h
o
l
a
r
s
n
o
t
o
n
l
y
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
t
h
e
complete t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
book 111, b
u
t
a
l
s
o
have completed t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Books IV & V i
n
1993,
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
e
d
by Kobayashi Noboru. I
n
addition
,
we have t
h
e
Japanese t
r
a
n
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Steuar
t's
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
01 t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
01 Lanark
(17
6
9
)
and
O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
D
r
.
B
e
a
t
t
i
e
'
s
E
s
s
a
y
o
n
t
h
e
N
a
t
u
r
e
and I
m
m
u
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
01 T
r
u
t
h
(17
7
5
)
.
I
n
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
sections
,
we w
i
l
l
d
i
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
our s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
second world war i
n
t
o
two periods--the f
i
r
s
t
p
e
r
i
o
d
(1952-1977)
,
and
(3)
t
h
e
second p
e
r
i
o
d
(1 978-88)一一 andexamine t
h
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
.
1
1
.
First period (1952-77)
Our s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on James S
t
e
u
a
r
t
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
second world war began with t
h
e
p
u
ｭ
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
Kobayashi Noboru (born i
n
1
9
1
6
)
]
u
s
h
o
s
h
u
g
i
no K
e
i
z
a
i
R
i
r
o
n
(
T
h
e
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
h
e
o
r
i
e
s
0
1
Mercantilism,
1
9
5
2
)
.
His grounding f
o
r
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
was p
a
r
t
l
y
Marx
,
and part
I
y Keynes. He t
r
i
e
d
t
o
i
n
t
e
r
p
r
e
t
Steuar
t's theory a
s
a monetary
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
Although h
i
s
book was c
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
d
a
s
a
mechanical combination o
f
Keynes
(3) It
i
s
n
o
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
we make l
i
t
t
l
e
o
f
f
o
r
e
i
g
n
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
we d
o
n
o
t
t
a
k
e
i
t
u
p
h
e
r
e
.
As e
v
e
r
y
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
h
a
s
i
t
s
own b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
economics
,
(i.
e.
,
S
.
R.Sen
,
P
.
Chamley
,
A.S
.
Skinner)
,
we a
r
e
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d
b
y
them u
n
d
o
u
b
t
e
d
l
y
.
Namely
,
d
e
b
a
t
e
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
i
n
g
K
e
y
n
e
s
a
n
d
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
Japan
,
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
a d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
t
u
r
n
f
r
o
m
a
b
r
o
a
d
.
S
e
e
M
i
y
a
z
a
k
i
[21J.Why we d
i
d
n
o
t
comment o
n
them i
s
e
x
a
c
t
l
y
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
j
u
d
g
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
we h
a
v
e
t
o
make a
t
r
e
n
d
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
c
l
e
a
r
firstly
,a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
we c
a
n
draw a
d
i
s
t
i
n
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
J
a
p
a
n
a
n
d
a
b
r
o
a
d
.
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
S
i
r
J
a
m
e
s
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
(4)
and Marx,
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
f
o
r
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
a
treatment o
f
t
h
e
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
value,
he u
n
d
o
u
b
t
-e
d
l
y
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
main stream o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
.
Before him
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
had been done s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
l
y
.
I
t
was he who provoked t
h
e
e
n
t
r
y
o
f
a
new g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
field
,
s
o
we can regard h
i
s
book a
s
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
m
i
l
e
ｭ
s
t
o
n
e
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
.
I
t
i
s
w
e
l
l
known t
h
a
t
Kobayashi s
t
a
r
t
e
d
h
i
s
academic c
a
r
e
e
r
a
s
a s
t
u
d
e
n
t
o
f
F
r
i
e
d
r
i
c
h
List
,
expanded
h
i
s
study f
i
e
l
d
t
o
t
h
e
E
n
g
l
i
s
h
m
e
r
c
a
n
t
i
l
i
s
m
and Adam Smith
,
but c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
tirelessly,
s
o
t
h
o
s
e
three 白 eldshave formed
‘
delta'
,
o
r
a
‘
tri-angle'
,
a
s
i
t
were - -with Steuart
,
o
f
course
,
a
t
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
As t
h
i
s
book was
h
i
s
f
i
r
s
t
one on Steuart
,
we may c
a
l
l
i
t
a
s
d
a
s
Merkmal
o
f
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on Steuar
t
.
I
n
o
t
h
e
r
words
,
t
h
e
f
i
r
s
t
s
t
a
g
e
o
f
our a
u
t
h
e
n
t
i
c
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
began with
(5)
Kobayash
i
.
By t
h
i
s
way,
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
t
h
e
paradigm o
f
Uchida Y
o
s
h
i
h
i
k
o
'
s
K
e
i
z
a
i
g
a
k
u
n
o
8
e
i
t
a
n
(A 8
t
u
d
y
o
n
Adam 8mith,
1
9
5
3
)
was supported by most s
c
h
o
l
a
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
h
i
s
ｭ
t
o
r
y
o
f
economic thought i
n
Japan
,
s
c
h
o
l
a
r
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
a
f
t
e
r
Kobayashi more o
r
l
e
s
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
e
d
U
c
h
i
d
a
'
s
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.
The second
&t
h
i
r
d
monographers on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
a
f
t
e
r
Kobayashi
,
Tazoe Kyoji (born i
n
1
9
2
5
)
and Kawashima Nobuyoshi (
b
o
r
n
i
n
1931)
,
now come on t
h
e
s
c
e
n
e
.
Uchida c
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
d
Kobayashi f
o
r
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
theory t
h
a
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
and s
u
r
p
l
u
s
-
v
a
l
u
e
a
s
a mainstay (Uchida [29J
,
p
.
8
)
.
I
n
h
i
s
reviews on U
c
h
i
d
a
'
s
book
(Ja
n
.
1
9
5
4
)
Kobayashi r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
some r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
ｭ
i
n
g
contemporary r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
W
e
a
l
t
h
01 Nations,
c
l
a
i
m
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
i
t
was n
o
t
Adam Smith but J
o
s
i
a
h
Tucker who spoke f
o
r
t
h
e
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
s
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
age o
f
t
h
e
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
R
e
v
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
(Kobayashi [17J
,
p
p
.
1
6
-
1
7
)
.
I
t
was n
o
t
Kobayashi
but Tazoe who l
e
d
t
h
e
way f
o
r
t
h
e
study on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
proper,
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
n
g
h
i
s
a
r
ｭ
t
i
c
l
e
s
and p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
them i
n
a book,
8
i
r
James 8
t
e
u
a
r
t
no K
e
i
z
a
i
g
a
k
u
(
T
h
e
E
c
-o
n
o
m
i
c
s
0
1
8
i
r
James 8teuart,
1
9
9
0
)
.
I
n
h
i
s
view
,
t
o
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
t
h
e
complete form o
f
(4) We c
a
n
g
i
v
e
Kimura
[10
J
(
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
Kawashima [9])
,
a
s
a
n
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
o
f
b
o
o
k
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
f
o
r
K
o
b
a
y
a
s
h
i.(5) O
n
c
e
t
h
e
K
a
n
s
a
i
b
r
a
n
c
h
o
f
t
h
e
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
T
h
o
u
g
h
t
o
f
J
a
p
a
n
s
e
t
u
p
a
common t
h
e
m
e
a
b
o
u
t
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
b
y
K
o
b
a
y
a
s
h
i
(May
31
,
1980
,
a
t
D
o
s
h
i
s
h
a
University
,
s
e
e
[l1J
,
p
p
.
62-66).Ifwe c
l
a
s
s
i
f
y
t
h
e
e
r
a
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
Japan
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
o
f
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
o
n
l
y
.
S
u
p
p
o
s
e
a
v
i
e
w
o
n
K
o
b
a
y
a
s
h
i
Noboru l
i
k
e
t
h
a
t
o
n
O
t
s
u
k
a
Hisao
,
U
c
h
i
d
a
Y
o
s
h
i
h
i
k
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
like
,
a
n
d
i
t
i
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
u
s
t
o
t
a
k
e
i
n
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
F
r
i
e
d
r
i
c
h
L
i
s
t
n
e
g
l
e
c
t
e
d
h
e
r
e
.
Furthermore
,
a
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
some o
n
e
c
a
l
l
e
d
h
i
s
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
f
s
t
u
d
y
“posi-tivismヘ it
i
s
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
n
a sense
,b
u
t
i
t
may n
o
t
b
e
h
i
s
r
e
a
l
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
.
S
e
e
K
o
b
a
y
a
s
h
i
[18J
,
p
.
9
5
.
(6)
He h
a
d
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
h
i
s
t
a
s
k
i
n
h
i
s
J
u
s
h
o
s
h
u
g
i
K
a
i
t
a
i
k
i
n
o
Kenkyu (1955
,
i
n
[
1
3
J
[
1
4
J
[
1
5
]
)
.
m
e
r
c
a
n
t
i
l
i
s
m
(
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
)
n
o
t
o
n
l
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
f
o
r
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
merｭ
c
a
n
t
i
1
i
s
t
theories
,
b
u
t
a
l
s
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a key f
o
r
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
t
h
e
Smithian system
,
a
s
an a
n
t
i
t
h
e
s
i
s
o
f
t
h
e
'
n
o
n
-
S
m
i
t
h
i
a
n
'
.
This
,
moreover
,
g
i
v
e
s
u
s
an a
n
g
l
e
t
o
crit・i
c
i
z
e
modern economic t
h
e
o
r
y
(Tazoe [28J
,
p
p
.
5
-
1
0
)
.
We
c
o
u
l
d
say t
h
a
t
he i
n
t
e
n
d
ｭ
ed t
o
c
r
i
t
i
c
i
z
e
Kobayashi on b
e
h
a
l
f
o
f
U
c
h
i
d
a
.
Tazoe c
1
aimed t
h
a
t
Books 1
&
1
1
o
f
P
r
i
n
c
il
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
be u
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
o
d
a
s
a d
u
a
l
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
On t
h
e
one hand
,
Book 1
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
a
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
(
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
)
method t
h
a
t
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
t
h
e
fundamental c
a
t
ｭ
egory of
‘
industry' from t
h
e
growth o
f
modern society--labour t
h
a
t
p
l
a
y
e
d
an
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
p
a
r
t
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
c
i
p
r
o
c
a
l
metabolism between man and n
a
t
u
r
e
a
p
p
e
a
r
s
a
s
‘
industry' i
n
modern
society-一一，and on t
h
e
other
,
a
f
t
e
r
Book 1
1
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
t
h
e
development o
f
modern s
o
c
i
e
t
y
from a s
i
m
p
l
e
form t
o
a complex --from
a
b
a
r
t
e
r
economy t
o
a
monetary o
n
e
.
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
by making an approach
to
‘
the l
a
b
o
u
r
i
n
g
e
n
e
r
a
l'(
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
i
n
Marx's
K
a
p
i
t
a
l
)
indeed
,
but he
f
a
i
l
e
d
t
o
complete t
h
e
l
a
b
o
u
r
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
value
,
f
o
r
when he t
r
e
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
commodities he sometimes brought t
h
e
e旺ectualdemand (Tazoe [28J
,
p
p
.
1
0
-
6
4
)
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
.
I
t
was a matter o
f
c
o
u
r
s
e
t
h
a
t
Tazoe went on t
o
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
t
h
e
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
value
,
profits
,
and wages i
n
Steuart
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
he saw t
h
e
g
o
a
l
o
f
economic t
h
e
o
r
y
a
s
t
h
a
t
o
f
Marx. I
t
i
s
prope
r
1
y s
a
i
d
t
h
a
t
he i
s
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
o
f
(7)
t
h
e
s
c
h
o
l
a
r
s
o
f
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
.
Now
,
Kobayashi r
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
t
o
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
on S
t
e
u
a
r
t
i
n
1
9
5
8
and c
o
l
l
e
c
t
e
d
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
i
n
t
o
a
book [
1
6
J
.
Most o
f
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s
might be r
e
g
a
r
d
e
d
having been w
r
i
t
ｭ
t
e
n
a
s
h
i
s
r
e
j
o
i
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
T
a
z
o
e
'
s
v
i
e
w
s
.
He d
i
d
s
t
r
i
c
t
l
y
d
i
s
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
t
h
e
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
a
c
h
f
i
g
u
r
e
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
economic thought
,
s
o
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
had t
o
be s
i
t
u
a
t
e
d
b
e
ｭ
f
o
r
e
Smith
,
and e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
l
y
he c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
S
t
e
u
a
r
t's
l
a
b
o
u
r
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
l
e
s
s
p
e
r
ｭ
f
e
c
t
than t
h
a
t
o
f
S
m
i
t
h
.
Kobayashi a
l
s
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
a new a
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
.
He d
e
f
i
n
e
d
mercant
i
1
i
sm a
s
a
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
p
r
i
m
i
t
i
v
e
accumulation
,
and r
e
g
a
r
d
e
d
S
t
e
u
a
r
t's
P
r
i
n
ｭ
c幼lesa
s
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
p
r
i
m
i
t
i
v
e
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
Having d
e
c
i
d
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
i
n
c
il
e
s
was on t
h
e
Continent
,
he a
s
s
e
r
t
e
d
t
h
e
W
e
a
l
t
h
01 N
a
ｭ
t
i
o
n
s
'
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
economic thought
,
i.
e.
,
t
h
a
t
S
m
i
t
h
'
s
t
h
e
o
r
y
was
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
c
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
s
t
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
As he had a
l
r
e
a
d
y
a
r
r
i
v
e
d
a
t
t
h
i
s
v
i
e
w
p
o
i
n
t
i
n
h
i
s
article
,‘
James Steuart
,
Adam Smith
,
and F
r
i
e
d
r
i
c
h
L
is
t'(1
966)
,
t
h
e
f
i
f
t
h
volume o
f
h
i
s
works
,
James S
t
e
u
a
r
t
Kenkyu (A S
t
u
d
y
o
n
James Steuart
,
1
9
7
7
)
s
t
a
n
d
s
a
s
a
landmark i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
o
f
S
t
e
u
a
r
t
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
i
n
J
a
p
a
n
.
(7)
The p
o
i
n
t
c
a
n
b
e
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
B
r
i
t
i
s
h
c
l
a
s
s
i
c
a
l
economists
,
o
r
i
n
a
b
r
o
a
d
e
r
sense
,
t
o
t
h
e
h
i
s
t
o
r
y
o
f
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
.
Tazoe
,
who h
a
d
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
f
o
r
m
e
d
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
w
o
r
k
f
o
r
h
i
s
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
o
n
Steuart
,
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
h
i
s
b
o
o
k
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
U
c
h
i
d
a
'
s
(
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
p
a
r
t
=
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
n
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
t
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
Principles,
