Tugan-Baranovsky, the Methodology of Political Economy, and the“ Russian Historical School”
探讨了俄/乌经济学家图甘-巴拉诺夫斯基在20世纪初对政治经济学方法论的关注，将其与凯恩斯、莱斯利等观点比较，并追问是否存在“俄罗斯历史学派”。
�� Marxist economists are not always renowned for their methodological subtlety, sometimes adhering to a form of simplistic instrumentalism— whatever serves the interests of “the working class” is by definition correct and so forth. However, one Russian/Ukrainian economist who is usually thought of as being in some sense a Marxist—Mikhail Ivanovich Tugan-Baranovsky (1865–1919)—showed considerable concern with the methodology of political economy in the first decade of the twentieth century and took a position decidedly against the prevailing orthodox Marxist view. This article presents Tugan’s approach to methodology and places it in historical context by briefly comparing it with other, more well known, views from the period such as those of John Neville Keynes and T. E. Cliffe Leslie. It also asks whether something that might be called a “Russian historical school”—or a Russian strand of “historical political economy”—existed prior to 1917, in parallel with the more famous German and Irish examples. While traditionally thought of as a “legal Marxist,” was Tugan also a key member of an “Eastern” historical school, and, if so, what were some of the main characteristics of his work in this respect? Correspondence may be addressed to Vincent Barnett, Centre for Russian and East European Studies, Birmingham University, U.K. This article is part of a larger project investigating TuganBaranovsky and the evolution of Russian economics from 1890 to 1919 funded by the ESRC (grant #R000237778). I am grateful to the ESRC and to CREES, Birmingham University, for providing support, and for the helpful comments of a sympathetic referee. Unless otherwise stated, all translations are mine.