@article{oai:shiga-u.repo.nii.ac.jp:00008161,
 author = {酒井, 泰弘},
 issue = {第386号},
 journal = {彦根論叢},
 month = {Dec},
 note = {Departmental Bulletin Paper, This paper aims to discuss comparative theories
of economic systems, with a focus on Werner Sombart (1863−1941) versus John R. Hicks (1904-89), an almost forgotten connection in the economics profession today. Hicks was awarded a Nobel economics prize in 1972 for his work on “general equilibrium and welfare economics,” no doubt referring to Value and Capital (1939). It was with mixed feelings that he found himself honored for that work, since he felt that he had outgrown it and lately shifted his interest to A Theory of Economic History (1969). When we discuss and compare alternative theories of economic systems, we find it quite useful to classify them into two streams. They are: the demand-side and the supply-side streams. The first approach dates back to the ‘mercantilism’ of the 17th and 18th centuries, and includes the important works of Werner Sombart, J.M. Keynes and modern Keynesian economists. The second one contains great economists such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, Joseph Schumpeter and many others. J. R. Hicks, who has integrated those two approaches, may be regarded as a ‘modern promoter’ for the
theory of economic history. Since the 1991 Sombart conference took place in Heilbronn, the work of Werner Sombart has witnessed a certain comeback and assumed renewed importance. He first introduced the term Kapitalismus or capitalism into the academic profession, discussing the critical role of der kapitalistische Geist or the capitalist sprit in the economic system. He placed the main break between the precapitalist and the capitalist era at the turn of the 15th to the 16th century. The era of capitalism was the divided into three periods: (1) Frühkapitalismus or early capitalism (until 1760), (2) Hochkapitalismus or high capitalism (1760-1914), and (3) Spätkapitalismus or late capitalism (since 1914). In his book on economic history, J. R. Hicks tried to look at economic activities in relation to human activities of other sorts, which appeared to have some resemblance to Sombart
in hindsight. The starting point of investigation
was the rise of the market or the exchange economy in which specialized traders with high spirits acted as important middlemen. According to Hicks, the Mercantile Economy was split into three phases: (1) the First Phase, (2) the Middle Phase, and (3) the Modern Phase. Note that the first phase is characterized by specialized merchants trading with the outside people; the second by penetration of money, law and credit; and the third by the rise of modern indudtry. I believe that the merchant of Ohmi in old Japan indicates a good example of the specialized trader noted by Hicks. In conclusion, the new Hicks approach to comparative economic systems reminds us of the old Sombart approach that was once influential yet now almost neg lected in the economics profession. It is high time for us to
carefully explore the similarity and/or difference between those two approaches. We can
learn new lessons from old teachings., 彦根論叢, 第386号, pp. 94-117, The Hikone Ronso, No.386, pp. 94-117},
 pages = {94--117},
 title = {経済システムの比較理論 : ヴェルナー・ゾンバルトとジョン・ヒックス（福田敏浩教授退職記念論文集）},
 year = {2010}
}