This article disproves the common contention that Thomas Carlyle dubbed economics ‘the dismal science’ in response to the Malthusian theory of population. It demonstrates that Carlyle was instead reacting to what he saw as the constraining effects on human behaviour of the endorsement of the market system by contemporary economists, known at the time as practitioners of political economy. It shows that it was Kenneth Boulding who was mainly responsible for the association of the phrase ‘the dismal science’ with the Malthusian theory of population. Looking at each of the historians of economic thought cited by Dixon (2006 Dixon, R. 2006. ‘Carlyle, Malthus and Sismondi: The Origins of Carlyle’s Dismal View of Political Economy.’ History of Economics Review 44 (1): 32–38. doi:10.1080/18386318.2006.11681227.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) as supporting the association of the phrase ‘the dismal science’ with both the Malthusian theory of population and Carlyle, it finds that none provides any evidence for the view that such an association exists. It concludes with speculation as to what Carlyle would have thought of neoclassical economics.

This book is essentially a modern equivalent of two Adam Smith 'companions' published in 1975 and 1976 respectively, namely Essays on Adam Smith and The Market and the State: Essays in Honour of Adam Smith, each edited by Andrew Skinner and Thomas Wilson. Over thirty years later four of the many eminent contributors to those earlier volumes have also contributed an article to this latest companion, namely James Buchanan, Sam Hollander, Warren Samuels and Andrew Skinner. Review(s) of: Elgar Companion to Adam Smith, by Jeffrey T. Young (editor), Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. 2009. Pp. xxv + 374. ISBN-978-1-84542-019-2 (hb).

Review(s) of: Joan Robinson, by G. C. Harcourt and Prue Kerr, Basingstoke, UK, and New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. 2009. Pp. x + 270. ISBN-13 978-1-4039-9640-4 (hb). US$100.

Reflecting its title, this article is divided into three sections. The first section outlines the contrasting ways in which the term 'positional goods' has been defined since it was first coined by Fred Hirsch in 1976. It is argued in this section that whereas Hirsch was thinking of goods of which it is true that for some of the members of a society part or all of the satisfaction derived from possessing them is the enhancement of social status due to the fact that such satisfaction is possible only for a minority, R. C. O. Matthews, Robert Frank and Ugo Pagano each defined the term in a substantially different way, so as to support his particular line of argument. The second section assesses the extent to which Hirsch's concept was anticipated by earlier writers, including Adam Smith, John Rae, Nassau Senior, Augustin Cournot, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Thorstein Veblen, Philip Wicksteed, A. C. Pigou, James Meade, James Duesenberry, Harvey Leibenstein, Roy Harrod, W. G. Runciman and Staffan Linder. The third section discusses the significance of recognition of the existence of positional goods for the predictive and policy analysis of markets, inequality, and economic growth.