Pre-PPE Political Economy at Oxford
Political economy and the teaching of its principles at Oxford had a long and problematic history. In May 1825, Oxford accepted an offer by Henry Drummond to endow a Chair in Political Economy at All Souls.
While opposed by some, the supporters of the idea of a chair, led by Richard Whately, urged acceptance. Political economy, they maintained, was rapidly becoming an indispensable field for statesmen. Indeed, as Whately is reported to have said, ‘before long political economists of some sort or other must govern the world' (Whately quoted in Briggs 1991: 320). As Oxford was perceived as a place to educate the future leaders of Britain, a failure to teach economics would mean that they would fall under the influence of Ricardians and Utilitarians, an outcome which would be anathema to Oxford's High Church Weltanschauung. Moreover, since 1816, Cambridge already had a lecturer in political economy.Whately was instrumental in securing the appointment of his former pupil and friend, Nassau William Senior, as the first Drummond Professor of Political Economy in June 1825. Senior presented the theoretical and policy positions of what can be called the “Oxford-Dublin School”, as a proto- marginalist challenge to classical economics. After Senior's five year-term ended in 1830, Whately took over the Drummond Professorship himself, but stayed for only a year before accepting a position as the new Archbishop of Dublin in late 1831. Whately's departure led to the appointment of William Forster Lloyd to the Drummond. Although himself a proto-marginalist, Lloyd was not quite of the school of Whately-Senior (see Moore and White 2010). He was succeeded by Herman Merivale and then Travers Twiss. Senior returned to Oxford for a second five-year tenure as holder of the Drummond from 1847 to 1852. Succeeding holders of the Chair were George Kettilby Rickards, Charles Neate and James Edwin Thorold Rogers (see Kadish 1982: 181-183; see also Young and Lee 1993: 1-4).
The integration of economics in the Oxford curriculum was tentative. From the outset, it was originally merely an optional subject within Classics. There was rarely more than one question on economics on the Classics exam, and it was under-weighted in any case. The Drummond Professorship was organised under the School of History. As a result of reforms in 1854, a new honours course in Law and Modern History was introduced, for which political economy was a subject. History was strengthened by the establishment of the Chichele Professorship of Modern History in 1862, and the separation of the law component into its own course in 1873. Modern History (containing economics) quickly became the second most popular honours course, behind Classics. Familiarity with political economy was also a subject for the general non-honours examination. In 1873, the recommended textbooks were Smith's Wealth of Nations and Mill's Principles (see ibid.: 267).
The terms of the Drummond were also revised. After Rogers' first tenure, the two-year interval condition was revoked in December 1867, to allow Bonamy Price to serve consecutive terms. In 1877, the University of Oxford statutes were revised, and the University added to Drummond's original endowment, taking the stipend up to £300, supplemented by an additional £200 Fellowship at All Souls (see ibid.: 172-173).
The English Historical School, notably in the form of Rogers and Price in economics, and T.H. Green and Arnold Toynbee in modern history, generated interest in economics that grew throughout the 1880s. Alfred Marshall became a Tutor and Lecturer in Political Economy at Balliol College, from 1883 to 1884, replacing Toynbee, who died in 1883 (see ibid.: 145, 198). Marshall was a popular tutor and lecturer. He influenced many Oxford students, notably L.L. Price. Indeed, as the Oxford Magazine wrote of Marshall on 21 January 1885 after his appointment at Cambridge (cited in Whitaker 1975: 27): ‘Coming to tutorial work little more than a year ago, he has been energetic in the teaching of his subject, and has had his reward in large and appreciative audiences.
He has done much to stimulate the study of Economics in Oxford and will be much missed'. Marshall recommended John Neville Keynes as his replacement.Some of the new group of economics-oriented students included William Ashley, J.A. Hobson, George Goschen, Price and Edwin Cannan. Many stayed on at Oxford, whether as fellows or as lecturers, and went on to form organisations like the Social Science Club and the Oxford Economic Society (see Kadish 1982: 53-59, 203-204).
The arrival of Francis Ysidro Edgeworth as Drummond Professor in 1891 changed matters. An economic theorist, Edgeworth deflated the historicist energy that had bubbled up during the 1880s. He primarily relied on the theoretical economics of Mill and Marshall for the lion's share of his lectures. Partly as a result, economic history was gradually reduced to a single course out of seven (see ibid.: 200; see also Young and Lee 1993: 2).
L. L. Price, while a Fellow at Oriel College and afterwards, took the position that Oxford should offer a degree in economics. In 1902, he complained to the Oxford Hebdomadal Council (Governing Board of the University) that the study of economics had fallen to a point of near extinction among students. Price pointed to Cambridge's growing strength in the subject and the imminent introduction of the Economics Tripos there, suggesting that Oxford needed to catch up and consider a degree in economics. This led to the establishment of a special postgraduate “Diploma in Economics”, overseen by a special seven-member Committee for Economics, to encourage more systematic study of economics at Oxford. Diploma lectures and examinations began in 1905 and consisted of five papers, three required papers on economic theory, the history of economic thought and economic history, and two elective papers on any mix of these (including applied topics) (see Chester 1986: 6-10).
However, while the Diploma was introduced in 1905, it took until 1920 for the establishment of PPE, which institutionalised economics teaching at Oxford, albeit not in the framework of a specific economics degree. Meanwhile, not all of the economists at Oxford were impressed by the new degree, with Price viewing it as a continuation of Oxford's tradition of treating economics as ‘pretty.Thut unimportant' (Department of Economics website n.d.).
3