I40 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 



a strong inner urge to say something. Also the time appears to be fitting. 

 English writers have been on the whole wisely chary of the subject ; but 

 recently there has been an outcrop of speculation upon it. There is 

 Prof. Robbins' brilliant essay. My differences from him on certain 

 matters of emphasis will become manifest ; his effective and conclusive 

 exposure of many popular fallacies regarding the nature and assumptions 

 of pure theory considerably lightens my burden. Prof. Fraser has con- 

 tributed some important articles, and his book on Economic Thought 

 and Language lies on the borderland of methodology. Most recently we 

 have Mrs. Wootton's jeremiad. ^ While her case against too grandiose 

 claims for our subject is unassailable, I am confident that a circumspect 

 statement of its achievement and utility would be proof against her shafts. 

 Most melancholy of all I find her unappetising programme for the future 

 development of economics. 



A word of warning is in place at the outset. In view of the prospective 

 intensification of economic studies in this country, it might be thought 

 timely to lay down the lines or set up some finger-posts for the work which 

 might most profitably be done. Such an attempt would indeed be 

 presumptuous and would depart altogether from proper methodological 

 procedure. The principles by which progress in a science proceeds can 

 only be reached by observing that progress. They cannot be deduced 

 a priori or prescribed in advance. There are no doubt certain general 

 logical rules to which all genuine advance in knowledge is subject. The 

 study of these constitutes logic itself. Each science or discipline has its 

 own special limitations and conditions ; its method of progress has its 

 own special characteristics ; within the wide field of logical possibilities 

 some are selected as especially adapted to its problems ; it is with this 

 selection that methodology is concerned. And for this reason the 

 methodologist is bound to occupy the rear and not the vanguard. He 

 studies the specific nature of the selected principles after the selection has 

 been made. Methods of course change from time to time ; but the actual 

 worker on special problems is more likely than the methodologist to be 

 able to judge the best line of advance. The methodologist's contribution 

 is more indirect. 



It is when they endeavour to adopt a forward position that the methodo- 

 logists are most apt to lapse into barren controversy. The historical 

 school scolds the deductive school and the deductive school scolds back. 

 Captions and battle-cries are devised. The ' institutionalists ' appear on 

 the scene. These rival schools endeavour to prescribe what economic 

 method ought to be. The function of the methodologist is to say what it 

 in fact is, or, more strictly, has so far been. The proper and final reply 

 to the would-be reformer is, ' Stop talking and get on with the job ; apply 

 your method, and, if it is productive, you will be able to display your 

 results.' 



On first glance this relegation of the methodologist to the rear might 



seem to give public endorsement to what has all the time been the inward 



suspicion of the pioneer that he is an utterly useless being. But in fact 



by reducing his claims he at once becomes much more useful. The 



^ Cp. also Dr. Lancelot Hogben, Political Arithmetic, Introduction. 



