Alfred Marshall Research Paper

1. The Man

Marshall was born in Bermondsey, a London suburb, on July 26, 1842, second son of William Marshall, a clerk at the Bank of England, and his wife Rebecca, nee Oliver. He grew up in London, attending the venerable Merchant Taylors’ School where he revealed considerable intellectual power and an aptitude for mathematics. Entering Cambridge University, he pursued the prestigious mathematical tripos, graduating in 1865 in the exalted position of ‘second wrangler’—a result guaranteeing election as a fellow of his college, St John’s. His interests soon turned from mathematics to questions of human and social existence, and in 1868 he became a lecturer in moral sciences at St. John’s. The moral science tripos covered philosophy, logic, and political economy. He lectured on political economy more from necessity than choice. But, perceiving that human and social advance would be possible only if economic constraints became less oppressive he soon settled on the subject as the focus for his life’s work and was to be influential in renaming it ‘economics.’

He rapidly became Cambridge’s dominant teacher of the subject. While publishing little, his early manuscripts (reproduced in Whitaker 1975) demonstrate that by the early 1870s he had developed many of the distinctive theoretical ideas later associated with his name. He also strove to attain a realistic grasp of the economic world both past and present. Reluctant to produce a theoretical monograph devoid of concrete application, he commenced a volume on international trade questions, visiting North America in the summer of 1875 for fieldwork. Although largely completed and accepted for publication, the project was abandoned in the late 1870s. But in 1879 H. Sidgwick privately printed two of its appendices for circulation in Cambridge and a few copies reached economists elsewhere. Known as The Pure Theory of Foreign Trade and The Pure Theory of Domestic Values these remarkable pieces were the high watermark of Marshall’s achievement in pure economic theory but were not widely known or accessible in his lifetime. (Whitaker 1975 provides the fullest version together with surviving portions of the text of the abandoned volume.)

In 1876 Marshall became engaged to Mary Paley, a Newnham lecturer, who had attended his early lectures for women and informally sat the 1874 moral sciences tripos examination. The two were married on August 17, 1877. Marriage required Marshall to resign his fellowship and he found a new livelihood as first principal of University College, Bristol. Here both Marshall and his wife taught economics. Meanwhile, he had taken a hand in the writing of a primer for extension classes, started by Mary Paley before their engagement. It increasingly became his book and appeared under their joint names as The Economics of Industry (1879). While ill-judged for its intended audience, it contained much novel material, including a theory of income distribution on marginal productivity lines. Its original features helped establish Marshall’s reputation amongst economists, especially abroad.

The fledgling Bristol college lacked financial support, and the tasks of administration and fund raising proved uncongenial to Marshall, anxious as he was to develop and publish his own ideas. Ill health, diagnosed as kidney stones, constrained him further and he resigned with relief in July 1881, spending much of the next year traveling in Europe, with an extended stay in Palermo where composition of his Principles began.

The following academic year was again spent in Bristol, where the pair taught economics, after which Marshall—who had become a protege of B. Jowett, the eminent Master of Balliol—moved to Balliol College, Oxford, as lecturer to the probationers for the Indian Civil Service. The move to Oxford had been viewed as permanent with good prospects for elevation, but the sudden death of H. Fawcett—professor of political economy at Cambridge since 1863— offered the possibility for a return to Cambridge in an assured, independent, and well-paid position. Marshall had already come to be recognized, after the 1882 death of W. S. Jevons, as the UK’s leading economist and he took up the Cambridge chair in early 1885, retaining it until 1908 when he voluntarily retired at age 65.

Fawcett had carried the professorship lightly, combining it with an active political career. But Cambridge was changing rapidly and expanding its commitment to modern subjects. With the lapsing of celibacy requirements, new-model professors and lecturers devoted themselves to the tasks of teaching and advancing knowledge. Marshall gave much effort over the years to lecturing and advising students, urging the more promising to follow the high calling of the economist. Despite frequent disappointments, he did manage to inspire a number of students who were to be prominent in the development of British economics, among whom A. C. Pigou and J. M. Keynes were conspicuous. From the outset, Marshall strove as professor to expand Cambridge’s scope for economic teaching, but with only modest success. He eventually secured in 1903 a new specialized tripos in economics and politics, but few resources were provided for it. The new degree only became firmly established after his retirement, but the seed he planted reached full flowering in the ‘Cambridge School’ of the interwar period.

The 1880s saw the most copious flow of occasional publications by Marshall as well as his important evidence to the Gold and Silver Commission of 1888–1889. (Most of his occasional writings are collected in Pigou 1925, which includes a virtually complete, bibliography. Materials concerning his participation in government enquiries are collected in Keynes 1926 and Groenewegen 1996.) Principles, on which he had been working since 1881, at last appeared to widespread acclaim in 1890. It was a success not only among academic peers at home and abroad but also with an educated public, gratified by its undogmatic and conciliatory tone and its evident concern for human well being. Marshall’s intention had been to follow Principles—initially subtitled Volume I—with a companion volume devoted to the applied branches of economics, an idea eventually abandoned as unworkable after intermittent efforts over the next decade or more. Meanwhile considerable effort went into revising Principles, which was to go through eight editions in his lifetime, the last being in 1920. (Guillebaud 1961 reprints the last edition with variant passages from earlier editions.) The copious rewritings and frequent rearrangements did not mark significant changes in Marshall’s views and tended to impair the work’s vigor and overall clarity. A condensation of Principles appeared as Elements of Economics of Industry in 1892, replacing the earlier work written with his wife, which he had come to dislike intensely. (Like the earlier work it included a treatment of trades unions omitted from Principles.)

Marshall’s next book, Industry and Trade, only appeared in 1919, long after his retirement. It was started in 1904 in the aftermath of the UK’s intense controversy over the desirability of maintaining free trade and was initially conceived as a short topical book on the issue of the day. But it soon developed into a more ambitious attempt to study the interrelationships between distinctive national conditions of industry and patterns of international trade. A motivating force was Marshall’s deep concern for the UK’s seemingly parlous economic future. Progress on the book was slow and delayed by war. The volume appearing in 1919 was only a fragment of the complete scheme with a vague promise, never fulfilled, of a continuation. An applied work, rich in contemporary detail but lacking in focus, it had a respectful reception but little impact. It nevertheless remains a remarkable if neglected work, displaying full vigor and wisdom of mind and much acumen about economic arrangements.

Marshall’s last book, Money Credit and Commerce, was assembled with unprecedented speed, appearing in 1923. It brought together material, often written decades earlier, on money, the business cycle, and international trade and payments. Here the 50-yearold graphical analysis of The Pure Theory of Foreign Trade was published at last. Unfortunately, waning powers precluded a new synthesis, but the book has incidental merits.

Marshall died on July 13, 1924 at Balliol Croft, his Cambridge home since 1886. His wife was to outlive him by almost 20 years. She taught economics at Newnham for many years after their return to Cambridge, but any intellectual ambitions of her own were subordinated to the task of relieving her husband of everyday vexations.

Balliol Croft was the center about which Marshall’s life had revolved after 1886. Under pleas of weak health he only left reluctantly as professional or social duties required. However, summers were normally spent in lodgings away from Cambridge—usually on the south coast of England or in the Tyrol—where he could write free of everyday distractions. But he was not a recluse. Balliol Croft saw many visitors and there were frequent ‘at homes’ for dispensing advice to students. While not relishing academic dispute, he strove to keep in touch with the real world by quizzing all in active life who came in his way: businessmen, trades unionists, social workers, and so on. Factory visits and inspections of working class life were also valued.

Marshall’s was a complex and contradictory personality, which it is now difficult to assess. Prone to fuss over details, and sometimes lacking common sense, he was nevertheless inspirational, especially to the young, in his commitment to the advancement of his subject and his intense conviction of its importance for society’s well being. He had remarkable conversational powers and an impressive ability to speak extempore. Above all, his subtle and wide-ranging mind saw complexities that eluded others and made it impossible for him to communicate his thought in a cut-and-dried way. His economic writings both benefit and suffer from this characteristic. They benefit from a breadth of vision and a richness of unexpected and thought-provoking insights. They suffer from a lack of full coherence and clear articulation, making it frustratingly difficult to grasp and describe his thought comprehensively. Marshall himself struggled incessantly with the daunting task of transferring his thought to the printed page, a task further complicated by an undue sensitivity to criticism and an incessant urge to rewrite already adequate texts.

2. The Background to Marshall’s Economics

British economics was at a critical juncture when Marshall came to it around 1870. The ideas of the classical economists, especially J. S. Mill whose Principles (1848) was still dominant, seemed out of tune with the needs and spirit of the age. The publication of Jevons’s Theory (1871) was a notable harbinger of the coming transformation from classical to neoclassical economics, which—while maintaining the deductive tradition of the classicals—was to emphasize the role of demand, the assumption of optimizing behavior, and the use of mathematical formalization. The British deductive tradition itself was coming under increasing attack from historically minded economists, especially in Germany, who sought to rely on induction and case studies as the best means of augmenting economic knowledge. More generally, Darwinian ideas on evolution were challenging traditional certainties, while there was increasing social concern over the growing political power of the working classes and the hard plight of the poorest.

Marshall was strongly influenced by this intellectual milieu. His initial economic studies centered on Mill’s rendition of classical theory but his mathematical background, allied with his early discovery of the neglected work of A. A. Cournot (1838), pushed him towards a mathematical—mainly geometrical—mode of argument. In contrast to Jevons he saw no need to overthrow the inherited classical system and only sought to close its gaps while preserving its important insights. He remained firmly in the British deductive tradition but mistrusted extended deductions based on oversimplified formalizations. He sought to guide deduction by maintaining close contact with observation and history and by allowing fully for disturbing causes. Although somewhat sympathetic to the aims of the historical economists, he emphasized that observation without the aid of a coherent analytical framework or ‘organon’ could yield little useful knowledge. Influenced especially by the views of Herbert Spencer, he placed great emphasis on the way human character was formed by the experiences of home, workplace, and leisure activities. This opened the possibility of gradual change in human character by the intergenerational transfer of acquired traits, a process more Lamarckian than Darwinian. On the other hand, he strongly resisted the idea that human nature could be transformed by drastic social changes. He attached great importance to the gradual improvement of character and abilities, especially in the lower ranks of society. His ideals here were perhaps parochially reflective of the middle class mores of his era but they were heartfelt. Economic progress was to him not an end in itself but a means to the improvement of mankind. Faced by a choice between the two he would perhaps have chosen human over economic gains, but he fortunately saw them as complementing and reinforcing each other. He declined to base economics on an artificial ‘economic man’ and sought to deal with human nature in the round, giving recognition to the constraints of duty and the striving for recognition among professional peers. While conceding that the economist as such has no special standing as adviser on normative matters, he did not let this restrain him and was indeed something of a preacher.

3. Theoretical Contributions

Marshall’s mature contributions to the theory of value and distribution build upon his earlier treatments in The Pure Theory of Domestic Values (1879) and The Economics of Industry (1879 jointly with M. P. Marshall) and are to be found in books 3, 5, and 6 of all editions of Principles after the first.

Book 3 of Principles deals with consumers’ demand. The focus is on the quantity of a particular good demanded by a consumer at a given price and the ‘consumer’s surplus’ consequently obtained. This surplus arises from the fact that a consumer’s demand price for an additional unit falls as successive units are acquired and equals purchase price only for the final or marginal unit bought. Marshall’s derivation of an individual’s demand curve, contingent on tastes, income, and other prices, and based on the assumption of diminishing marginal utility, provided a simple if limited foundation for a downward sloping market demand curve for a good, relating its price to aggregate quantity demanded. It remains a staple of elementary pedagogy, as does his related concept of demand elasticity. The consumer’s surplus notion seems to have been an independent rediscovery of a neglected idea developed by the French engineer J. Dupuit in the 1840s. Marshall was well aware of the limitations of welfare arguments based on this individual-specific monetary measure of benefit. The individual’s marginal utility of money must remain constant, and interpersonal aggregation requires strong assumptions. Nevertheless, the concept continues to be widely used in applied economics.

Book 5 of Principles brings together market demand and supply for a commodity, taking for granted the broader economic context—an approach known as ‘partial equilibrium’ analysis which is closely associated with Marshall although hardly original to him. The treatment of supply is restricted to the extreme cases of monopoly and thoroughgoing competition, although the latter is often more akin to modern theory’s imperfect competition than to its perfect competition. (Industry and Trade (1919) was to probe interestingly into the intermediate case of trusts, cartels, and ‘conditional monopolies’ always threatened by potential entrants.) The treatment of monopoly does not advance significantly beyond Cournot, apart from a remarkable brief treatment of socially optimal pricing by a publicly owned monopoly. The treatment of supply in the competitive case is more notable. There are two distinct lines of innovation.

‘Period analysis’ recognizes that quantities of some productive inputs may not be alterable in a limited time so that the industry’s supply conditions become contingent upon the length of the period to which the analysis is meant to apply. Moreover, payments to any type of input will be determined by the cost of securing its use to the industry only if there is enough time to vary freely the quantity employed. Otherwise, payment to such inputs has the character of a rent—termed a ‘quasi rent’—determined by the product’s price rather than helping to determine this price as a necessary element in production cost.

The other notable feature is the explicit consideration of scale economies in production. External economies are due to the growth of the size of the industry as a whole rather than the sizes of its constituent firms. They reflect osmosis of worker skills, increased opportunities for specialization, and so on. Although somewhat elusive, the idea of such economies remains significant in modern economics. Internal economies are due to a growth in firm size that permits more efficient large-scale production methods to be utilized. While often plausible, a persistent ability of larger firms to undercut smaller firms threatens the viability of atomistic competition. Marshall’s solution, implied in his ‘representative firm’ concept, was to combine market and organizational restrictions on rapid firm expansion with a life cycle for the firm due to a waning of entrepreneurial drive on the part of the founder’s successors. Such an argument applies more to the Victorian family firm than to the modern joint stock company, which was to take the limelight only in Industry and Trade (1919). The modern ‘representative agent’ concept owes little to Marshall beyond the name.

Scale economies under competition permit the supply price at which any quantity of a good is supplied to the market to fall with quantity, just as the corresponding demand price does. This admits the possibility that there may be more than one marketequilibrium quantity at which supply price equals demand price. The so-called Marshallian adjustment process through which market equilibrium is attained is very much in the classical tradition deriving from A. Smith. Price adjusts to clear the market of whatever quantity is made available, thus settling at the demand price for that quantity. Then the quantity supplied increases (decreases) as the supply price at the initial quantity is below (above) this market price, so that supernormal (infra-normal) profits are being made. An equilibrium quantity is unstable if there is divergence from it.

The possibility that there may be more than one market equilibrium that is stable for small perturbations is sufficient to disprove a claim that a competitive equilibrium must maximize social welfare. Marshall was clear that the most that could be claimed was what came to be called Pareto optimality. But he showed in a remarkable argument that even this might not be true, demonstrating that a social gain may be obtained by taxing an industry whose supply price rises with quantity in order to subsidize an industry having falling supply price. His analysis of this and other welfare issues drew heavily on the consumersurplus concept and foreshadowed much in the ‘new welfare economics’ emerging in the 1930s.

Partial equilibrium analysis was extended in book 5 of Principles to cover a group of closely interrelated markets, as exemplified by a set of goods jointly demanded or supplied. More general is the interaction between the markets for an output and its several inputs. Here Marshall introduced the idea of derived demand—the demand for inputs being derived from the demand for the output they jointly produce— fruitfully characterizing the determinants of the elasticity of derived demand for any one input. Even if the number of goods involved is large, the analysis of such multi-market cases remains partial equilibrium in nature since an economy-wide setting that is little influenced by what happens in the markets analyzed is still tacitly assumed.

Only in Principles book 6 did Marshall turn to a consideration of the entire economy and its complex mutual interactions between value, production, and income distribution. His approach was macroeconomic, centering on the concept of the ‘national dividend’ or national income. This was seen as the combined product of the various factors of production, each unit of which claimed a share equal to its marginal product. Increased quantity of a homogenous factor would lower its marginal product but raise the national dividend, while the absolute or relative shares accruing to the entire factor could rise or fall.

The ‘law of substitution’ in production and consumption (essentially cost minimization and utility maximization), together with the equality of prices to all-inclusive costs required for competitive equilibrium, ultimately settle equilibrium prices for all goods and factors: also the quantity of each good produced, together with the quantities of the various factors used to produce it. None of this is described with any formality. It remains more a general vision than a precise theoretical statement that might rival the general-equilibrium theory of L. Walras. What book 6 effectively does, however, is to integrate a neoclassical marginal-productivity approach to the demand for factors of production with a classical approach to their supply (extensively developed in Principles book 4). This results in a real cost explanation of factor price determination in the long period. If factor supplies were permanently fixed, then factor prices would be determined wholly by the derived demand for their services, and the cost of any particular use would only be the opportunity cost of potential earnings in the best alternative use. But if, as Marshall supposes, continual replacement flows are needed just to maintain factor supplies then factor prices must exactly remunerate the real cost of eliciting these replacement supplies while still satisfying the derived-demand or marginal-productivity condition.

For Marshall, capital, labor of all kinds including managerial labor, and even business organization when firms have finite lives, all require replacement flows to maintain their levels. The case of labor is particularly complicated in the long period. Parents often make decisions for their children about occupation and acquisition of human capital, while the expected return to investment in human capital provides inadequate surety for borrowing to undertake it, being both uncertain and incapable of ownership transfer. A further complication is the ‘economy of high wages’ which results when increased wages improve worker efficiency by boosting physical or mental well-being, a possibility to which Marshall attached considerable importance. Indeed, his treatment of labor markets is one of the most valuable features of Principles book 6.

Apart from those embodied in Principles, Marshall’s theoretical contributions are limited. His foreign trade analysis (1879) with its ingenious offer curves was indeed an important advance on Mill’s treatment, but highly restricted circulation limited its impact. On money, he had a masterly grasp of British monetary tradition but added little that was novel. His most significant innovation was to replace the velocity of circulation with a demand for money function, a change which already appeared in an early manuscript and was to remain influential in the Cambridge monetary tradition leading up to Keynes’s General Theory (1936).

4. Policy Views

Marshall was a proponent of economic freedom and free trade but not a doctrinaire one or an advocate of extreme laissez faire. He saw government as having important functions in regulating market forces and remedying or alleviating the problems they produced. Redistributive taxation was acceptable, even desirable, if it did not threaten the security of property or incentives to effort. For the well-to-do striving to keep up with their neighbors, or for professionals seeking the acclaim of their peers, Marshall saw absolute incomes as largely symbolic and felt that taxation which preserved income relativities in the middle and upper classes would not have serious disincentive effects on effort, saving, or risk-taking. Town planning and provision of recreational facilities were needed for the well-being of the urban working classes, the young especially, while a government safety net was needed for those in abject poverty, although private charity could be more discriminating in the incentives it offered and in distinguishing the deserving from the undeserving. To ‘administrative socialism’—proposals that government take over the active management of most industries—he objected violently, however. He foresaw that it would result in widespread bureaucratic lethargy and an undermining of the freedom to experiment and innovate essential to economic progress and society’s future well being. Increasingly he came to feel that the UK’s future prosperity must rest on the chivalric competition of those in control of private business, freed from intrusive government regulation and from enervating protection against foreign competition. He took relatively lightly the possibility that cartels, combines and monopolies might come to dominate, viewing them as continually undermined by economic change. His early hopes that involvement in trades unions and cooperative societies would induce among workers an appreciation of and sympathy for the complexities of business management waned and he came to fear organized labor as an ossifying factor second only to the heavy hand of government and itself a distinct threat to the UK’s international competitiveness. But, after the sobering experience of war and its expanded government control of the economy, Industry and Trade (1919) was to place more reliance on conscious industry-wide collaboration between management, labor, and government.

Education had a vital role in raising the working classes by improving abilities, skills, and ambitions, as workers, parents, or citizens. Schools and technical colleges, provided or sponsored by the government, were crucial, but Marshall stressed that much practical education occurred in the workplace: also in the home, where the duties of mothers and daughters were urged and extolled.

On monetary arrangements, Marshall’s preference was for a managed paper currency operating within an international gold-exchange standard. His proposal in the 1880s for ‘symmetalism’—use of a fixed-quantity combination of gold and silver as the monetary base—was only offered as a superior alternative to the clamor of the time for fixed-price-ratio bimetallism. His preferred goal for monetary policy was to maintain fixity of nominal input prices rather than output prices. Productivity increase would thus yield declining output prices. To palliate the effects of unforeseen price-level changes he proposed voluntary indexation of private contracts by means of a price index or ‘tabular standard’ published by the government.

5. Place in Economic Thought

Marshall can claim some subjective, but limited objective, originality as a contributor to the opening round of the so-called neoclassical revolution, initiated in the 1870s by the writings of Jevons, Walras, and C. Menger, although quite fully anticipated in the then largely forgotten writings of Cournot, Dupuit, H. H. Gossen, and others. He has stronger claims to have been an important contributor to the second round, culminating only in the 1890s, which extended marginalism from value to distribution by means of the marginal-productivity concept. Here, he claimed to have been influenced early on by the work of J. H. von Thunen, although the evidence for this is meager. But the lasting impact of Marshall arises less from transforming ideas than from the provision of serviceable tools which still remain in everyday use: partialequilibrium analysis, consumer’s surplus, demand elasticity, derived demand, long-period versus shortperiod analysis, and so on. These ideas remain prominent in applied work and pedagogy even if they no longer feature prominently at the frontiers of theoretical research. They perhaps serve as mute testimony in defense of Marshall’s distrust of extended abstract theorizing and his preference for being roughly relevant rather than precisely and elegantly irrelevant.

But Marshall’s impact on the development of economics came as much, if not more, from his influence on his students and his role in the professionalization, or perhaps better academicization, of economics in the UK as from the impact of his ideas. His Principles (1890) was prominent for 30 years or more in the training of economists in English speaking countries, while his students took over many of the new economic posts arising in the UK as higher education expanded, or else became prominent in government service. His struggles to establish economics more firmly in Cambridge bore later fruit in the influential ‘Cambridge School,’ although his intellectual hold on it had greatly weakened by the 1930s. Anxious that economists should present a public facade of unity and cumulative progress, he was led to present neoclassical ideas as more evolutionary than revolutionary and to take a conciliatory tone in methodological disputes, especially in dealing with the claims of the German historical school. While not an active promoter of, or participant in, professional organizations of economists, he placed his ecumenical imprint on the British Economic Association, founded in 1890 and subsequently renamed the Royal Economic Society.

Equilibrium analysis based on fixed conditions and fixed human response-patterns was only a first step for Marshall, the beginning rather than the end of economic knowledge. His evolutionist leanings led him to decry such analysis as merely mechanical and to look for approaches that were more biological in nature and which recognized the mutability and pathdependence of human character and institutions. His interest in such approaches was not to be much developed and remains somewhat enigmatic. Of particular interest in this connection is his analysis of the intertwined emergence of free enterprise and economic thought moved from Principles book 1 to Principles Appendices A and B after edition 4. Modern mainstream economics, although considerably indebted to Marshall, has hardly adopted his broader agenda, which indeed seems to have had little influence on the work of his students. Today’s economic heterodoxy thus can often find both target and support in Marshall’s work.

6. Further Reading

Keynes’s biographical memoir (in Pigou 1925) is not to be missed, and there is now a scholarly full-scale biography (Groenewegen 1995) and a comprehensive edition of correspondence and related documents (Whitaker 1996). There is no satisfactory monograph on Marshall’s economic thought but Tullberg (1990) and Whitaker (1990) provide assessments by various authors on the centenary of Principles. Wood (1982, 1996) provides a convenient but undiscriminating reprint in eight volumes of pertinent articles from academic journals.

Bibliography:

1. Cournot A A 1838 Recherches sur les Principes Mathematiques de la Theorie des Richesses. Hachette, Paris [1897 Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. Macmillan, New York]
2. Groenewegen P 1995 A Soaring Eagle: Alfred Marshall 1842–1924. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, UK
3. Groenewegen P (ed.) 1996 Official Papers of Alfred Marshall; A Supplement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
4. Guillebaud C W (ed.) 1961 Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics, 9th (Variorum) edn. Macmillan, London
5. Jevons W S 1871 The Theory of Political Economy. Macmillan, London
6. Keynes J M (ed.) 1926 Official Papers of Alfred Marshall. Macmillan, London
7. Keynes J M 1936 The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. Macmillan, London
8. Marshall A 1879 The Pure Theory of Foreign Trade, The Pure Theory of Domestic Values. Privately printed [reproduced in Whitaker 1975]
9. Marshall A 1890 Principles of Economics. Macmillan, London, Vol. 1
10. Marshall A 1892 Elements of Economics of Industry. Macmillan, London
11. Marshall A 1919 Industry and Trade. Macmillan, London
12. Marshall A 1923 Money Credit and Commerce. Macmillan, London
13. Marshall A, Marshall M P 1879 The Economics of Industry. Macmillan, London
14. Mill J S 1848 Principles of Political Economy. Parker, London
15. Pigou A C (ed.) 1925 Memorials of Alfred Marshall. Macmillan, London
16. Tullberg R McW (ed.) 1990 Alfred Marshall in Retrospect. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, UK
17. Whitaker J K (ed.) 1975 The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867–1890. Macmillan, London
18. Whitaker J K (ed.) 1990 Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
19. Whitaker J K (ed.) 1996 The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall, Economist. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
20. Wood J C (ed.) 1982 Alfred Marshall: Critical Assessments. Croom Helm, London
21. Wood J C 1996 Alfred Marshall: Critical Assessments, Second Series. Routledge, London