E030. Fabricata IX: The Catechism of the Market
Sub Specie Numeri — Scarcity, the Manufacture of the Market, and the Theological Quarrel Concealed Beneath the Mathematics of the Economic Schools
Abstract
A prior monograph in this series argued that the major national economic schools diverge along the lines of their territories' confessional firmware, and that the neoclassical homo economicus is the Protestant ascetic with the theology deleted and the behavioural signature retained, de-historicised and exported as natural law. That argument was deconstructive: it took a finished economics apart to show the theology inside. The present monograph reverses the operation and asks the constructive question the prior one provoked. If the economic axioms are confessional, then substituting a different confessional anthropology at the axiom-seat should yield a different economics; and if it does, three consequences follow, which this paper develops as three graded theses. The first thesis — that the grammar through which a culture construes time, the self, labour, wealth, rationality, and desire determines the content of its economics — is shown to be true but partial, because beneath the confessionally variable axioms lies a layer of material constraint (scarcity, exchange, finitude) that no theology installs or removes. The second thesis — that "the market" is therefore a second-order product, a constructed and historically specific institution masquerading as a first-order natural fact — is the paper's load-bearing claim, and it is established on the testimony of the discipline's own most authoritative witnesses: Polanyi on the disembedding of the economy, the scholastic doctrine of the iustum pretium under which the market price was for centuries a moral hazard rather than a moral fact, and the documented manufacture of homo economicus by John Stuart Mill in 1836. The third thesis — that the incommensurable, parallel quarrels of the economic schools are, beneath the mathematics that justifies them, theological collisions conducted in differential equations — is advanced with two heavy qualifications that rescue it from relativism: the axiom-layer is theological but the operating-layer is empirical, so that data partially corrects firmware; and mathematics is not merely the lawyer of the axioms but, on occasion, their whistle-blower, formalisation having a way of exposing the internal contradictions of the very priors it was retained to defend. The conclusion is that the seal identified in the prior monograph is more complete than there suspected: economics has not merely hidden a theology, it has hidden the fact that it is choosing one — and the choosing, not any particular choice, is what the mathematics is for.
0. A note on manners
It is only polite to concede at the outset that the thesis about to be advanced will strike the professional economist as somewhere between quaint and impertinent, and that he is within his rights to set down his coffee and frown. The claim that his discipline is theology in mathematical dress is the kind of thing said by people who have not had to estimate a standard error, and he will have met it before, usually from a sociologist, usually at a party he was hoping to leave. The present author wishes to be clear that he holds the economist's tools in high and genuine regard, that nothing here disputes a single regression, and that the argument is narrower and, the author hopes, more difficult to wave away than the version the economist has learned to dismiss. It concerns not what economics finds but what it assumes before it begins to look — and, in particular, the small matter of where those assumptions came from, which the discipline has been remarkably incurious about, in the way that a fish is incurious about the provenance of water. The reader who prefers his conclusions undisguised may skip to §7. The reader who enjoys watching a position get dressed before it is undressed is invited to continue in order.
1. The first thesis: that grammar determines content (and where it stops)
The starting observation is one the prior monograph established and this one need only restate: the figure at the centre of modern economics — the rational agent with stable preferences who maximises utility, discounts the future, treats his labour as a disposable input and his accumulation as the rational disposition of a life — is not the human being as such but a particular human being, dressed by long habit as the universal one. Each of his defining axioms is the secular sediment of a specific theological construal. His linear, discountable time (the future worth less than the present, deferral a virtue) is the secularised eschatology of a tradition that ran time in a straight line toward a settlement; his atomic individuality (the unit of account a single self, contracting with other single selves) is the soul-before-God of the Reformation relocated to the market stall; his vocation of labour, his sanctified accumulation, his calculative reason that renders the world a field of optimisation — each, the prior monograph argued and Weber before it documented, is ascetic Protestantism with the doctrine excised and the conduct retained (Weber 155–83).
If this is so, the constructive corollary writes itself. Should one seat a different anthropology at the axiom-bench — construe time, the self, labour, wealth, rationality, and desire through a different confessional grammar — one should obtain a different economics, not as a matter of speculation but as a matter of record. The record obliges. Seat the Lutheran anthropology, in which the self is not an atom but a member of a divinely instituted order (the Obrigkeit) and the state an ethical organism rather than a contractual convenience, and one does not get laissez-faire; one gets the German Ordoliberalismus of Eucken and Röpke and the soziale Marktwirtschaft, in which the market is not a sacred spontaneous order to be left alone but a constitutional Ordnung that the ethical state is obliged to frame, police, and underwrite (Eucken; Röpke). Seat the Islamic anthropology, in which wealth is a trust (amanah) held of God rather than an absolute possession, in which gain divorced from shared risk is injustice and the time-value of money — interest, ribā — is forbidden outright, and one does not get a discounting capital market; one gets the profit-and-loss-sharing instruments (muḍāraba, mushāraka) of a now-institutionalised Islamic economics, whose maximand is not utility but falāḥ, welfare optimised under the constraint of the hereafter (Siddiqi; Kuran, Islam and Mammon 38–54). The same operation performed on the same world yields different economics because the anthropology seated at the axioms differs. The variable is confessional; the output tracks it.
Here, however, the courteous knife must be turned first upon the thesis itself, because the thesis as stated is too strong, and its overstatement is exactly the error that lets economists dismiss the whole enterprise. Not everything varies. Beneath the confessionally mobile axioms lies a stratum that no theology installs and none repeals: that wants exceed means, that this excess compels allocation, that allocation occurs partly through exchange. Scarcity is not Calvinist. Exchange is not Lutheran. The Muslim trades, the Confucian trades, the Orthodox peasant trades; the forms and meanings of their trading differ wildly, but that some impersonal transfer occurs is, as even Polanyi's most committed substantivist readers concede, always encountered (Hann and Hart 6). The first thesis is therefore true at the layer of response and false at the layer of constraint: theology governs how a culture answers scarcity — what it permits, forbids, sanctifies, and computes — but it does not get a vote on whether scarcity obtains. This is not a retreat. It is the hinge on which the second thesis turns, for it is precisely the distinction between the constraint (first-order, given) and the response (second-order, constructed) that the discipline has spent two centuries conflating, to its great and concealed advantage.
2. The second thesis, part one: the manufacture of the market
The load-bearing claim of this monograph is that "the market" — not the fact of exchange, which is first-order and given, but the Market, the self-regulating, morally self-justifying, autonomous order whose prices are by their nature just and whose workings the state profanes by touching — is a second-order product: a constructed, datable, confessionally specific institution that has been successfully passed off as a first-order feature of nature. The distinction is everything, and the discipline's central sleight is to keep it out of view.
The anthropological authority for the distinction is Karl Polanyi, whose The Great Transformation (1944) is not a pamphlet but the founding text of substantive economic history, and whose thesis is as inconvenient as it is documented: in all societies before the modern, the economy was embedded — submerged in social relations, governed by reciprocity and redistribution, with exchange present but subordinate and never self-directing — and the disembedded economy, the self-regulating market severed from society and set above it, is not the natural condition that other arrangements failed to reach but a singular, violent, and recent historical achievement (Polanyi 45–58, 71–80). The self-regulating market did not grow; it was made, and made late, by deliberate construction requiring that land, labour, and money be turned into "fictitious commodities" — fictitious because none was produced for sale, and the pretence that they were is the founding fiction of market society (Polanyi 75–76). Polanyi's word for the belief that the market is natural is not "error" but something closer to "theology": the "stark utopia" of a self-regulating market is a faith, held against the evidence of all prior human economy, and its imposition called forth — by a reflex Polanyi names the "double movement" — society's spontaneous self-protection against a fiction it could not survive (Polanyi 3, 79, 136–40). One need not swallow Polanyi whole to take the structural point, and indeed one should not: the economic sociologists who inherited his term promptly softened it, Granovetter observing, correctly, that even modern market activity remains threaded through social relations and is never as disembedded as the models pretend (Granovetter 481–93). But Granovetter's qualification deepens rather than dissolves the thesis. If even the modern market is in fact embedded, then the disembedded Market is doubly a construction — not only manufactured but, strictly, never fully achieved, a regulative fiction the discipline models as though it were real while it never quite is. The Market is thus second-order twice over: built where it was supposed to be found, and imagined complete where it remains, stubbornly, social.
The historical authority for the same distinction is older and, to the modern ear, stranger. There was a millennium of sophisticated European thinking about exchange in which the market price was not the just price but a thing the just price was needed to correct. The scholastic doctrine of the iustum pretium, elaborated by Aquinas and the Schoolmen, held that a price could be sinful — that to sell a thing for more than it was worth, exploiting scarcity or a buyer's distress, was a violation of commutative justice and a matter for the confessional, not merely the ledger (Aquinas, Summa II-II q. 77; De Roover 418–34). One must be careful here, for the secondary literature is itself a contested field, and honesty requires reporting that it cuts both ways: De Roover's celebrated reading holds that the Schoolmen's just price was, in many cases, simply the competitive market price, so that the scholastics were closer to market economists than the old caricature allowed (De Roover 421); against the simple story, then, the just price was not always the market price's enemy. But the deep point survives the correction, and is in fact sharpened by it. Whether the just price coincided with or constrained the market price, it was the moral category that did the work — the price was answerable to justice, embedded in a normative order, a second-order judgement laid over the first-order fact of what buyers would pay. What had to happen, for the modern Market to be born, was not the discovery that prices exist but the evacuation of the moral category — the quiet retirement of the question "is this price just?" in favour of the question "is this price clearing?", after which the market price ceased to be a fact awaiting moral judgement and became a fact constituting it. Schumpeter, no friend of sentimental anti-capitalism, records the magnitude of what was lost and inverted, and notes — with a dryness one can only admire — that Adam Smith owed more to the Schoolmen than to the mercantilists, having studied his economics as a branch of moral philosophy at Glasgow before it was anything else (Schumpeter 91, 181). The Market did not find its moral justification in nature. It manufactured one, by deleting the prior moral question and renaming the answer.
3. The second thesis, part two: the manufacture of the man who shops in it
If the Market is second-order, the figure who inhabits it is second-order too, and here the record is not anthropological or scholastic but simply biographical, which makes it harder to wave away: homo economicus has a birthday. He was not found in nature, observed across the species, or excavated from the human past. He was defined into being by John Stuart Mill in 1836, in an essay on the method of political economy, as an avowed and acknowledged abstraction — "an arbitrary definition of man," Mill wrote, a being who "invariably does that by which he may obtain the greatest amount of necessaries, conveniences, and luxuries, with the smallest quantity of labour," constructed precisely because no such man exists and the science needed a tractable one (Mill 137–40; Persky 222–25). Mill knew he was building a mannequin; he said so; the candour is on the page. What happened next is the entire subject of this section: the mannequin's confessed artificiality was, over the following century, quietly forgotten, until the being Mill had offered as a deliberate methodological fiction was installed in the "hard core" of the discipline as a description of the human as such, his rationality hardened from Mill's loose tendency into an axiom of full optimisation he never claimed (Dzionek-Kozłowska 33–51).
The contemporaries who objected saw exactly what was happening, and one of them, conveniently for this monograph's thesis, objected on explicitly confessional grounds — which is to say, the manufacture of homo economicus was contested as theology at the time, by people who could still see the seams. Writing in a Catholic periodical in 1878, the jurist Claudio Jannet dismissed the economic man with a phrase this monograph could have wished it had coined: "this sort of homo economicus is like Rousseau's natural man: it never existed" (qtd. in Maas and Mata 463). And Jannet's positive objection is the first thesis stated by a hostile witness sixty years early: English political economy, he charged, "took humanity out of the equation," eliminating "the influence of national life, that of the family, the connection of men to places, custom," and concluding that "the subject of economic observation should be the family and not the isolated individual" (qtd. in Maas and Mata 463). Here is a different confessional anthropology — Catholic, familial, embedded, marked by the "constant action of original sin" rather than the smooth rationality of the English model — proposing, from its different axioms, a different unit of economic analysis and therefore a different economics. The peasant household economics of Chayanov would later supply, from the Orthodox East, yet another such unit and another such economics (Chayanov). The economic man was never the only candidate. He was the candidate of one confession, who won the seat and then had the minutes rewritten to say the seat had never been contested.
The seal, in the prior monograph's sense, is now visible in cross-section. A second-order construction (the Market) is populated by a second-order construction (economic man), and both are presented as first-order nature — the constructed passed off as the given, the trace of manufacture polished away until the practitioner experiences a datable invention as a timeless law. This is not deception in the ordinary sense, because the deceiver is also deceived: the economist who models homo economicus does not know he is transcribing a contested nineteenth-century abstraction with a Calvinist accent, and his not-knowing is the seal working as designed. He has inherited the conclusion and lost the receipt.
4. The third thesis: the theological war beneath the mathematics
We arrive at the most ambitious claim, which must be handled with the most care, since it is the one most likely to be either thrilling or false and is in fact, this monograph will argue, thrilling within strict limits and false outside them. The claim is that the great parallel quarrels of the economic schools — the disputes that do not resolve, that run for generations, that survive every confrontation with data — are, beneath the mathematics in which they are conducted, theological collisions: disagreements not about the facts but about the axioms through which facts are constituted, and those axioms confessional in the manner the first monograph traced.
The symptom that something other than empirical disagreement is afoot is the incommensurability itself. Ordinary scientific disputes are settled, eventually, by evidence; the parties share a standard of resolution and the data adjudicate. The deep disputes of economics conspicuously do not behave this way. The Austrian and the Keynesian have contemplated the same depressions for the better part of a century and drawn opposite conclusions from them, not because one cannot read a chart but because they are reading the chart through incompatible priors about what an economy fundamentally is. The Austrian axiom — that order is spontaneous and uncomputable, that the synoptic knowledge required to plan it is constitutively unavailable, that the design of the economic whole is a fatal conceit — is, the prior monograph argued, the secularised doctrine of an inscrutable providence before which the finite intellect must not presume (Hayek, Fatal Conceit 6–7, 76–88). The opposing axiom — that the economy is a transparent system, surveyable and constructible by sufficient reason, soluble as Walras's general equilibrium is soluble, manageable as the dirigiste tradition manages — is the secularised confidence of a constructible rational order, the Gallican-Cartesian firmware that holds the whole to be available to the right mind (Walras). Confronted with a slump, the first prior yields "do not touch it, the order will restore itself," and the second yields "intervene, the order can be designed" — and these are not two hypotheses about the same world but two worlds, each internally coherent, each generating its own mathematics, neither reachable from the other by argument. The equations are impeccable on both sides. The collision is upstream of the equations, at the axioms, where the mathematics has not yet begun and the theology has not yet ended. The schools are conducting the medieval quarrel over providence and reason — whether the order exceeds the mind or answers to it — in the notation of the differential calculus, and calling the notation the substance.
If this is right, then the mathematics performs, at the level of the discipline, exactly the office that the prior monograph on neuroscience assigned to reason at the level of the individual: it is the justificatory faculty, the production of impeccable argument in defence of a conclusion the deep prior has already delivered. The differential equations of the rival schools are not where the disagreement lives; they are where each school's prior goes to be dressed in the authority of the incontrovertible. One does not argue with a theorem, and that is precisely its use: a prior that has been formalised has been placed beyond the reach of the kind of objection that could touch it, because the objection now appears to be an objection to mathematics, which no serious person wishes to be caught making.
5. The courtesy of the second knife: why this is not relativism
A thesis of this shape invites a conclusion it must refuse, and refusing it is the difference between an argument and a sneer. If the schools are theologies and the mathematics their vestments, it is tempting to conclude that economics is "merely" faith, that no school is truer than another, that the whole enterprise is confessional preference with regression tables. This conclusion is false, and the monograph that drew it would have committed, with a flourish, the relativist's self-refutation — for the claim "all economics is merely theology" is itself either an empirical claim (and so not merely theology, and so self-undermining) or merely theology (and so without claim on anyone's assent). Two qualifications hold the thesis to its defensible form, and both happen to be the most interesting things in it.
The first is that the theology lives at the axiom-layer, but economics has an operating-layer that is genuinely empirical, and at that layer data corrects firmware. Whether a money-supply expansion produces inflation, whether a price ceiling produces shortage, whether an interest-free contract allocates capital efficiently — these are not settled by confession; they are settled, imperfectly and with lag, by what happens. The history of the discipline is in part a history of priors losing to evidence: the stagflation of the 1970s did to the cruder Keynesian confidence what no Austrian syllogism could, not because the Austrians out-argued the Keynesians but because the world declined to behave as the model required (Friedman). The firmware is real and it is deep, but it is not sealed against the world at every point; where it issues testable predictions, the world is permitted to vote, and sometimes does so decisively. The third thesis applies to the incommensurable axiom-disputes, which data cannot reach, and not to the operating-disputes, which it can — and the tragicomedy of the discipline is that practitioners routinely mistake the former for the latter, conducting an unwinnable theological war in the costume of a winnable empirical one, which is why it never ends and why both sides are always, in their own eyes, on the verge of being proved right by the next quarter's figures.
The second qualification is more elegant and cuts the other way, in economics' favour. The mathematics is not only the lawyer of the axioms; it is, on occasion, their whistle-blower. To formalise a prior is to expose it to a scrutiny that ordinary language spares it, and formalisation has a documented habit of turning on the very assumptions it was retained to serve. The supreme instance is Arrow's impossibility theorem, which took the confessional dream of the constructible-order tradition — that the rational collective good can be coherently aggregated from individual preferences, that the social welfare function exists — and proved, mathematically, that under a handful of innocuous-seeming conditions it does not and cannot (Arrow 22–33). No theologian could have refuted the dream so cleanly; it took the dream's own preferred instrument to do it. Mathematics, then, is double-faced: it dresses the priors in unchallengeable authority, and it occasionally strips them, because a prior rendered into theorem can be shown to contradict itself in a way a prior left in prose cannot. The discipline that hides its theology in mathematics has therefore also, unwittingly, built the one device capable of catching that theology in the act. This is the strongest thing that can be said for economics, and this monograph, having said many of the other kind of thing, is pleased to say it: the formalism that conceals the confession is also the only confessor that cannot be lied to.
6. Limits, counter-arguments, and the bounded claim
The provisional-floor discipline of the series requires the objections in full, and this monograph's reach demands several.
The first objection is that the confessional mapping of §§1 and 4 is loose, retrofitted, and unfalsifiable — that one can find a theological ancestor for any economic prior if one is determined to, and that the exercise proves nothing it did not assume. The objection has force and the reply is the one the third monograph already supplied: the mapping earns its keep not by post-hoc resemblance but by the controlled comparison — the same imported doctrine (Marxism) compiling into structurally different systems on different confessional substrata, a divergence the firmware hypothesis predicts and the universal-rationality hypothesis cannot explain. The mapping here is offered as continuous with that evidence, and is bounded accordingly: it claims structural isomorphism and confessional tracking, not that every economist's mathematics can be deduced from his baptism.
The second objection concerns Polanyi, whose thesis has been vigorously contested — that he romanticised pre-market economies, understated the antiquity and reach of market exchange, and that the "embedded/disembedded" binary is too clean for a record in which markets are very old (North; and the substantivist-formalist debate generally). The monograph has tried to honour this by leaning on the structural claim (that the self-regulating, morally autonomous Market is constructed) rather than the strong historical one (that no significant market existed before modernity), and by enlisting Granovetter's correction as a deepening rather than a refutation. The defensible residue is robust: even the discipline's critics within economic sociology agree that the fully disembedded market of the models is an idealisation that nowhere obtains, which is all the second thesis strictly needs.
The third objection is that the iustum pretium reading is contestable, and it is: De Roover's influential view, cited above against the simple story, holds the scholastic just price to have often been the market price, which complicates any tale of a clean moral-to-amoral transition. The monograph has conceded this in the body and rested its weight on the surviving point — that the moral category was operative and was later evacuated — which holds whether the just price coincided with or constrained the market price, since either way the price stood answerable to a justice external to itself, and that answerability is what modernity retired.
The fourth is the standing reflexive objection, conceded throughout the series and sharpened here to its proper edge: this monograph too is written from an axiom-layer it cannot fully survey, and its preference for the embedded over the disembedded, for the visible seam over the seamless surface, is not innocent of its own firmware. The claim is comparative and bounded — a view from the difference between confessions, not from above all of them — and the author's own confession, whatever it is, is among the things he cannot see while using it to see.
The fifth bounds the formal claim of §5. Arrow's theorem is offered as an instance that mathematics can refute the priors it serves, not as evidence that it usually does or that economics is therefore self-correcting in general; the whistle-blower is real but rare, and the lawyer is the day-job.
7. Compiled summary
The prior monograph showed a theology inside economics by taking economics apart. This one asked what follows, and found three graded theses. The first: the grammar through which a culture construes time, the self, labour, wealth, rationality, and desire determines the content of its economics — true, as the Lutheran Ordoliberalismus and the interest-free instruments of institutionalised Islamic economics demonstrate by seating different anthropologies at the axiom-bench and obtaining different sciences — but true only at the layer of response, since beneath the confessionally mobile axioms lies a stratum of material constraint (scarcity, exchange, finitude) on which theology gets no vote. The second, load-bearing thesis: the fact of exchange is first-order and given, but the Market — the self-regulating, morally self-justifying, autonomous order whose prices are just by nature — is a second-order product, constructed and datable, passed off as first-order nature. Polanyi supplies the anthropology (the disembedded market was made, late and violently, on a foundation of fictitious commodities, and is in any case never fully achieved); the scholastic iustum pretium supplies the history (for a millennium the market price was answerable to a justice outside itself, a moral category the modern Market did not refute but evacuated); and John Stuart Mill, who invented homo economicus in 1836 as a confessed abstraction later hardened into a description of the species, supplies the biography of the man who shops there. The seal is thereby shown more complete than the prior monograph suspected: a constructed market peopled by a constructed man, the whole presented as nature, the receipts mislaid.
The third thesis: the incommensurable, unresolving quarrels of the economic schools are, beneath the mathematics that conducts them, theological collisions — the Austrian inscrutable-providence prior against the constructible-order prior, the medieval quarrel over whether the order exceeds the mind or answers to it, re-staged in differential equations that function, as reason functions in the individual, to dress an already-delivered verdict in the authority of the incontrovertible. This thesis is held within two qualifications that save it from the relativism it flirts with: the axiom-layer is theological but the operating-layer is empirical, so that data corrects firmware where firmware ventures testable predictions (the 1970s did to Keynesian confidence what no syllogism could), and the discipline's standing tragedy is to fight the unwinnable theological war in the costume of the winnable empirical one; and mathematics is not only the lawyer of the axioms but, in instances such as Arrow's theorem, their whistle-blower, the formalism that hides the confession being also the one confessor that cannot be lied to. The conclusion, offered with every courtesy and no retraction, is that economics has not merely concealed a theology but concealed that it is choosing one each time it sets its axioms — and that the mathematics, magnificent and indispensable, is for the most part the rite by which the choice is consecrated and its having-been-a-choice forgotten. Sub specie numeri, dogma manet: under the aspect of number, the dogma remains — and is, by number, the better hidden.
Works Cited
Arrow, Kenneth J. Social Choice and Individual Values. 2nd ed., Yale UP, 1963.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benziger Bros., 1947.
Chayanov, A. V. The Theory of Peasant Economy. 1925. Edited by Daniel Thorner et al., U of Wisconsin P, 1986.
De Roover, Raymond. "The Concept of the Just Price: Theory and Economic Policy." The Journal of Economic History, vol. 18, no. 4, 1958, pp. 418–34.
Dzionek-Kozłowska, Joanna. "The Early Stages in the Evolution of Economic Man: Millian and Marginal Approaches." Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym, vol. 20, no. 6, 2017, pp. 33–51.
Eucken, Walter. The Foundations of Economics: History and Theory in the Analysis of Economic Reality. 1940. Translated by T. W. Hutchison, Springer, 1992.
Friedman, Milton. "The Role of Monetary Policy." The American Economic Review, vol. 58, no. 1, 1968, pp. 1–17.
Granovetter, Mark. "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness." American Journal of Sociology, vol. 91, no. 3, 1985, pp. 481–510.
Hann, Chris, and Keith Hart. Market and Society: The Great Transformation Today. Cambridge UP, 2009.
Hayek, F. A. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. U of Chicago P, 1988.
Kuran, Timur. Islam and Mammon: The Economic Predicaments of Islamism. Princeton UP, 2004.
Maas, Harro, and Tiago Mata. "The Birth of Homo Œconomicus: The Methodological Debate on the Economic Agent from J. S. Mill to V. Pareto." Journal of the History of Economic Thought, vol. 43, no. 4, 2021, pp. 455–73.
Mill, John Stuart. "On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It." 1836. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, vol. 4, U of Toronto P, 1967, pp. 309–39.
North, Douglass C. Structure and Change in Economic History. Norton, 1981.
Persky, Joseph. "Retrospectives: The Ethology of Homo Economicus." Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9, no. 2, 1995, pp. 221–31.
Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. 1944. Beacon Press, 2001.
Röpke, Wilhelm. A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market. 1958. Translated by Elizabeth Henderson, Henry Regnery, 1960.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis. Oxford UP, 1954.
Siddiqi, Muhammad Nejatullah. Muslim Economic Thinking: A Survey of Contemporary Literature. The Islamic Foundation, 1981.
Walras, Léon. Elements of Pure Economics. 1874. Translated by William Jaffé, Allen and Unwin, 1954.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. 1904–05. Translated by Talcott Parsons, Routledge, 2001.
