Early marginalist ideas on money: some neglected exceptions to the quantity theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantity theory of money (QTM) is an important building block of neoclassical economics. This has led scholars to believe that all monetary accounts proposed by marginalist economists are inherently based on the QTM. However, within the bimetallic controversy of the last quarter of the 19th century, there were some neoclassical proposals which departed from the framework of the QTM. In this article, I analyse three of these accounts: Alfred Marshall's symmetallism, Irving Fisher's compensated dollar plan, and Knut Wicksell's inconvertible paper standard. These monetary arrangements—especially the first two of them—have rarely been studied in the literature. Still, their relevance should not be neglected in current times in which the economics profession—both orthodox and heterodox approaches—has moved towards an endogenous money view. The proposals studied also show that the neutrality of money does not necessarily imply the QTM, as it is often suggested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".