Book Review

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to JAH online. About 224 words from this article are provided below; about 400 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the Organization of American Historians, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a member of the Organization of American Historians, you can:: • Join the OAH and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the Journal of American History.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two-hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of American History (86.1-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the Journal of American History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

Book Review | The Journal of American History, 86.1 | The History Cooperative

The Money Interest and the Public Interest: American Monetary Thought, 1920-1970. By Perry G. Mehrling. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. xvi, 283 pp. $45.00, isbn 0-674-58430-9.)

Among economists, intellectual history is the province of the historians of economic thought, whose fervor in describing the purely technical frequently leads to a neglect of cultural and historical context. The novelty of this book resides in the author's attempt to place the life and work of three American monetary (?) economists—Allyn Young (1876-1929), Alvin Hansen (1887-1975), and Edward Shaw (1908-1994)—within a much broader intellectual and historical framework. The Progressive movement of the last century spawned an institutional tradition among some American economists even if, according to the author, they may not have identified themselves as institutionalists. 1

The elements of Progressive thought that influenced all three economists included a deep commitment to improving the lot of man through social control and a rejection of unbridled laissez-faire, which implied a positive role for government as a safeguard for, rather than an encroachment on, economic freedom. As institutionalists, they were empiricists who immersed themselves in data, including the accumulation of historical evidence as a basis for formulating theory. They were attracted to applied economic problems and their solutions, though unlike their immediate predecessors they acknowledged the value of economic theory and did not shun its use. . . .

There are about 400 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.