Content uploaded by Zdravka Todorova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Zdravka Todorova on Sep 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Todorova-06-10-23
1
Hazel Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption, Veblen’s Business and Industrial Concerns,
and W.C. Mitchell’s Essays on Spending and Money: Conceptual Links
Zdravka Todorova, Professor of Economics, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA
zdravka.todorova@wright.edu
[A version of this paper is forthcoming in Research in the History of Economic Thought and
Methodology, Volume 41 D, Symposium: “100 Years after the Publication of ‘A Theory of
Consumption’ by Hazel Kyrk (1923)”, 2024].
Abstract
The paper discusses conceptual links among Hazel Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption (1923); the
overall work of Thorstein Veblen, and Wesley C. Mitchell’s essays on spending and money. The
three authors are concerned with transformations in production, related changes in the
organization of consumption, and the effects on people. The approach is based on reading Kyrk’s
book in light of an integrated view of Veblen’s overall work. The paper explains how Mitchell’s
essays on money and spending built on Veblen’s work and discusses their relevance for
understanding Kyrk’s book as conceptually linked to institutional economics. The paper
delineates the following commonalities: conception of living humans and money as an
institution; distinction between business and industrial concerns; connection between
distribution, waste, and consumption; and Veblen’s “machine process” of standardization in
production and its relation to consumption. The paper brings more detail to the conceptual and
theoretical discussion of Veblen’s influence on Kyrk’s book.
JEL Categories: B22; B52
Key Words: Hazel Kyrk; Thorstein Veblen; Wesley C. Mitchell; Consumption Theory;
Distribution; Money as an Institution
I am grateful to Noah Rape for editorial assistance.
Todorova-06-10-23
2
1. Rationale, Scope, and Purpose
It is recognized that Hazel Kyrk ’s (1886-1957) A Theory of Consumption (1923) had a field-
forming impact in the area of consumption economics, and it is noted that she took, incorporated,
and extended the American Institutionalist approach (Velzen 2003, pp. 48-50; Trezzini 2016, p.
279; Madden 2018, pp. 255-6; Rutherford 2011, p. 143; Phillippy 2021, p. 392; Kuiper 2022, p.
135-6;). What are the specific theoretical and conceptual elements that make Kyrk’s analysis
institutionalist? Discussed points include links to aspects of the work of John Dewey - a figure
foundational to the American Institutionalist method (Velzen 2003, p. 50); similarities with some
of the arguments by Wesley Mitchell’s “The Backwards Arts of Spending Money” (Velzen
2003, p. 49; Philippi 2021, p. 393); and most widely, links to Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure
Class (Velzen 2003, p. 48; Trezzini 2016, p. 280; and Kuiper 2022, p.135). Those links refer to
the social determination of consumption, distinction, and emulation of social groups, as well as
to the evolution of consumption standards.
The present article offers a more in-depth discussion of conceptual connections in A Theory of
Consumption to two major builders of institutional economics – Thorstein Veblen and Wesley C.
Mitchell. The connections to Veblen go beyond The Theory of The Leisure Class (1899).
Veblen’s theory of consumption is embedded in his theory of distribution and production, which
are developed throughout his works. W. C. Mitchell was one of the members of the Hart,
Schaffner & Marx award committee that awarded Kyrk’s dissertation in 1921 the first prize,
which preceded the revised publication of A Theory of Consumption (1923) (Madden 2018).
Here the focus on Mitchell’s work is on his essays about spending and money. This focus
stresses money as an institution, which is important in Mitchell’s analysis and in Veblen’s theory
of the business enterprise, and indeed distinguishes institutional economics from other
approaches.
The article emphasizes that the critiques of marginal utility, productivity-based distribution, the
treatment of money in economic theory, and the conception of humans in economic theory,
represent an interconnected whole. This is evident in the works of Veblen and in Mitchell, and I
argue in A Theory of Consumption. Those links represent elements of institutional theory. The
article is organized in sections on money in the economy; business vs. industrial concerns;
Todorova-06-10-23
3
distribution and waste; and the machine process. Those are discussed in connection to human
agents; problems of consumption and social costs; consumption standards; and consumption
process. The discussion stresses the Veblenian consumption, production, and distribution theory
as a whole.
As Malcolm Rutherford (2011, p. 33) points out, the emergence of institutional economics
around World War I involved multiple figures, activities, and spheres of development. It “… was
not just Veblenism” and “...Veblen is always mentioned but never in isolation”. Mitchell,
Hobson, J. M. Clark, and Walton Hamilton, among others, were prominent in accounts about the
activities and efforts to form an institutionalist movement. The focus here is on Veblen and
Mitchell and certainly could be extended. For example, Walter Hamilton in his 1919 American
Economic Review article on the institutional approach to economics, delineates relevant
characteristics of economic theory that represent a synthesis of general common critiques and
directions.
Veblen is a central point of reference, as his work continues to influence institutional economists
today. Mitchell’s most prominent and recognized work is empirical and statistical, which can be
seen as an applied development or continuation of the questions raised by Veblenian theory. I
focus on Mitchell’s theoretical essays on money and spending, which clearly show a direct link
to Veblen. Similarly, Kyrk built on Veblen’s theory (and on others) to develop a theory of
consumption, later oriented to applied work. Like Mitchell, she then continued to conduct
empirical studies, including Economic Problems of the Family (1933a). Importantly, Veblen,
Mitchell, and Kyrk worked outside the conceptual apparatus of neoclassical economics and
discussed problems of socio-economic change in an increasingly industrializing economy of
mass production, consumption, and finance. Mitchell and Kyrk moved that inquiry into applied
work.
In fact, as Rutherford (2011, p. 23) points out, Mitchell’s notion of institutionalism was to
develop a statistical component of institutional economics, which would displace orthodox
theory, as a more relevant approach to the changing times. It is important to stress the theoretical
foundation both in Mitchell and in Kyrk, and particularly their link to Veblen. First, as noted by
Madden (2018 p. 255), while Kyrk had a successful career following her award and publication
of A Theory of Consumption, she had relatively less significant presence in terms of academic
Todorova-06-10-23
4
articles in economics journals, as compared to male economists. So, this should not diminish the
acknowledgement of her contribution to institutional theory. Second, as Rutherford (p. 151)
notes, institutionalists have been accused of conducting descriptive a-theoretical work. At the
same time, Veblen is blamed for being too abstract and theoretical (though it should be noted
that in the Theory of the Business Enterprise and in The Absentee Ownership, for example,
Veblen continuously refers to cases and examples of business practices and dealt with the facts
of the economy). Thus, it is important to revisit in more detail the theoretical institutionalist
content of an empirical interdisciplinary economist like Hazel Kyrk.
Veblen’s work has been extensively discussed and applied within old institutional economics and
has influenced contemporary inquiry in that multi-stream approach (see Gruchy 1974 [1972] pp.
20-32 and O’Hara 2002, for example). Excellent comprehensive overviews of Veblen and his
work are provided also by Edgell (2001) and Camic (2020). Outside of institutional economics,
the most recognized part of Veblen’s theory of consumption is “conspicuous consumption,” as
well as comparison within social classes, emulation of upper classes, and the leisure class. The
conceptual analyses of conspicuous consumption vary depending on the considered scope of
Veblen’s work. However, the perspective in this paper is that Veblen’s conspicuous consumption
is part of his broader theory of surplus and distribution (Todorova 2013). Veblen discusses
“standards of decency” and “standards of beauty” in consumption, leisure, products, behavior,
and dress. While that is a continuation of discussions found in political economy - for example in
Adam Smith (one instance is 1984 [1759] p. 182) - Veblen built a distinct theory. His concepts
of standards of decency and emulation are part of his broader analysis of surplus, distribution,
labor, predation, invidious distinction, valuation, the evolution and development of the capitalist
economy, and broadly institutional change.
Consequently, Veblen’s theory of consumption is directly connected to the rest of his work (see
for example Lower 1980 for one account). This includes the theory of the business enterprise, the
conflict between pecuniary concerns and the production of needed goods; the place of
workmanship in society; the development of salesmanship and advertising; the
institutionalization of standardization through the machine process and its effects on products,
landscapes, and lives; and the emergence of the “new order” of the credit economy and absentee
ownership. Those themes are throughout Veblen’s work and are fundamental for his theory that
Todorova-06-10-23
5
includes consumption. Similarly, it is argued here that Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption is also
about distribution and a changing capitalist system. As in Veblen, Kyrk’s consumption theory is
not only about consumer behavior and social standards but about the evolution of the role of
money in the economy; social costs; and technological and social change.
W. C. Mitchell’s essays help illuminate this point. Of particular interest here are Mitchell’s
essays “The Backward Art of Spending Money” ([1912] 1937) and “The Role of Money in
Economic Theory ([1916) 1937). Those essays are concerned with economic theory that is able
to account for the growing role of money, associated changes in the social organization of
consumption, and the socio-economic implications of those changes. In this and other essays,
Mitchell brings in a Veblenian discussion of conflict between business and industrial concerns.
Mitchell also stresses the central role of money as an organizing concept in exploring those
problems. In “The Backward Art of Spending Money” ([1912] 1937) Mitchell discusses how the
expansion of business production and marketing has altered households’ spending and the
conditions of consumption. The system results in poor consumption decisions – households have
less information and ability to plan. Households’ objectives are very different from those of the
business enterprise, and while there is spending of money, the household is not engaged in
business profit decision-making. Consequently, there is room for improving the now “backward
arts” of consumption expenditures – or institutional change. This necessitates an understanding
of money as an institution, recognizing inequities, and looking at socially interconnected
institutions and processes. That is the importance of discussing links to Mitchell’s essays on
money and economic theory in addition to the “The Backward Art of Spending Money.”
The paper focuses on the following conceptual links among Kyrk, Veblen, and Mitchell: the
importance of money as an institution in economic theory and conceptions of living humans as
economic agents; the distinction between business and industrial concern (making money vs.
making goods); distribution and surplus in the theory of consumption; and the “machine process”
and households’ position compared to those of business enterprises. The discussion of these links
in greater detail, and especially the stress on money, helps advance an understanding of A Theory
of Consumption as conceptually connected to broader institutional economic theory. Particularly,
we see process as a central concept in economic analysis; taking money as an institution
seriously, and its impact on institutional change, livelihood, and social costs; distribution and
Todorova-06-10-23
6
waste, as well as agency and social change in economic analyses and politics. The sections of the
paper are organized along these conceptual elements of commonality.
2. Money, Living Humans, and Consumption Theory
Kyrk insisted that a theory of consumption “… is not the study of a narrow-circumscribed field”
(1923, p. 6) that fits a narrowly defined scope of economics. She was interested in a multifaceted
theory of consumption that answers questions about the problems of consumers and the
organization and changes in the economy.
“Who gives the ends and purposes toward which effort is directed?... What determines
the ends and purposes our elaborate production mechanism is made to serve? What is the
place of the consumer in the industrial scheme? Through what agencies can he make his
interest felt?” (Kyrk 1923, p. 9)
Kyrk emphasized the need for an active role of “consumers.” The development of a theory of
consumption needs not passively suit the orthodox demand and price theories. Instead,
consumption theory could advance critical questions about social organization and distribution.
Kyrk’s insistence on a new consumption theory around active agents of knowledge and change
bears a conceptual connection to Thorstein Veblen’s urging that economics moves away from
“the hedonistic man” as “the definitive human datum” - a passive entity, not a “prime mover.”
“He has neither antecedent nor consequent… He is not the seat of a process of living,
except in the sense that he is subject to a series of permutations enforced upon him by
circumstances external and alien to him.” (Veblen 1898 [2011] p. 153).
It is important to link Veblen’s critique of the economic agent and the life process to his critique
of money in economic theory as merely facilitating circulation. Both occur in “Why is
Economics not an Evolutionary Science?” (1898). Veblen’s complaint is that irrespective of the
larger role of money in the organization of the economy, economic theory defined money mainly
as a medium of exchange, “… rather than in terms of causal relation” (Veblen 1898 [2011], p.
149). This is one of the reasons Veblen argues that the economics analyses of his time were not
evolutionary. Rather than studying “cumulative sequence,” economics “has the character of
Todorova-06-10-23
7
‘unreality’” (Veblen 1898 [2011], p. 157). Veblen argued that treating money as a medium of
exchange has enabled economists to focus on “the apparatus being invested with a tendency of
equilibrium…” and to look away from concerns about “living items” (149). The outcome, at its
best, is a system of economic taxonomy. “At its worst, it is a body of maxims for the conduct of
business and a polemical discussion of disputed points of policy.” (149) Veblen 1909 [2011]
argued that subsequent reformulations of marginal theory preserve “the substance of hedonism”
(Mitchel 1916 [1937], p. 155).
This is echoed by Wesley Mitchell:
“Clear recognition of the role which money does play in economic life is more likely to
broaden than to narrow the scope of economic theory. It should help us to design, what
we sorely need, a framework within which all sorts of contributions may find their proper
places.” (Mitchell [1916] 1937, p. 172)
I suggest that Kyrk has done precisely that - using as a basis for her consumption theory the
monetary production economy, and its changing social effects. Indeed, in A Theory of
Consumption Kyrk (1923, p. 86) refers to Mitchell’s essay on the role of money in economic
theory. The use of money organizes both production and consumption on pecuniary “calculus.”
In addition, she notes: “Income, the result of productive activity, becomes by virtue of the use of
money, generalized purchasing power and a store of value.” (p. 86). And further:
“Specialization and exchange, then, have made of consumption a process of choice
distinct from production, involving expenditure and calculation in money terms. The
consumer must deal with the market mechanism.” (Kyrk 1923, p. 87).
This is the reason for Kyrk’s emphasis on consumer interest in the operations of the business
system. For example, she alludes to the cooperative movement (p. 88). The book continuously
stresses that economic theory should enable questions about consumers’ positions in the money
economy, the effects on them, and about undertaking necessary actions. I argue that Kyrk’s
broader purpose for consumption theory comes out of an understanding of the limitation of
marginal utility and theory of distribution and production, and the increasing importance of
Todorova-06-10-23
8
monetary market relations in everyday life. In addition, she is critical of the productivity and
thrift theory of distribution.
“There are modern preachers whose theory of welfare seems to be: Let each one applies
himself with the utmost diligence to production, and save from his income the maximum
possible, to the end that social wealth and income may increase at a rapid rate. Industry,
thrift, saving, are the magic words of this philosophy, the goal of each man’s endeavor.”
(Kyrk 1923, p. 74).
In addition to underconsumptionist worries about depressionary effects, Kyrk (2023, p. 75) notes
that concerns about industry and thrift ought to make room for concerns of consumption. This
call is a departure from the orthodox theory of distribution that centered on thrift and
productivity. It also brings attention to human needs – availability and quality of goods, subject
to the “industrial” concerns of consumers – focusing on the life process and well-being.
Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption is a development in central directions urged by Veblen – the
centrality of process; the study of living humans and their agency; and money as an institution.
These three elements go hand in hand in “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?”
throughout Veblen’s work, as well as in Mitchell’s essay. They change the subject matter of
economics, and lead to a distinction between pecuniary valuation and valuation in terms of
livelihood, and to the possibility of a focus on human needs. Further, those elements are present
later in Veblen’s last book The Absentee Ownership (2023), particularly in his critique of the so-
called “natural order.” He critiques outdated treatments of ownership, capital, and interest as
productive – explaining that this is rooted in an understanding of a handicraft – rather than a
credit-based industrialized economy (see Ch. III).
Like Veblen and Mitchell, Kyrk offers a critique of marginal utility (1923, Ch. 6). She sets
towards a new theory of consumption that seeks to answer questions about “…the nature of
value and the valuation process, and what is the key to that complex of activities called
consumption.” (Kyrk, 1923, p. 146). That is in order to “…yield something more suggestive for
the interpretation of consumers’ choices that the former reading of the puzzle as merely a
‘pursuit of happiness’.” (p. 146). Kyrk’s inquiry is about new problems of living, which emerge
Todorova-06-10-23
9
with the evolving money-organized economy. She is concerned with changing technological and
business processes and new spaces for social responses from the vantage point of consumption.
For example, Kyrk (1923, p. 92-93) alerts to the changing living landscapes and environment
due to industrialization and business organization, and points to social costs that accompany
greater consumer choice. Her evident concern with social costs warrants greater attention to
consumption and its growing pecuniary organization. Kyrk (1923, p. 86) keenly describes how
the greater division of labor, changing production techniques, and expansion of the business
enterprise and salesmanship affect the new realities of consumption. She describes an
institutional change and discusses how money enters the consumption process to a larger degree.
Particularly, Kyrk explains how capitalist development leads to the emergence of consumption
as an economic activity that becomes subject to “pecuniary calculus.” This institutional change,
she argues, warrants the organization of a new scheme of governing consumption – requiring
active citizenship around consumption as an economic activity. Van Velzen (2003, p. 50)
discusses Kyrk’s incorporation of ideas from John Dewey, particularly regarding democracy, and
points out that this is an attempt to extend institutional thought into consumer theory.
In addition, Kyrk’s theory can be seen as bringing the institutionalist analyses of pecuniary
economy into consumer theory or developing the consumer side of the theory of money (credit)
economy. This emerges with the simultaneous critique of marginal utility and productivity-based
distribution. It is useful to recollect Mitchell’s point about the role of money in economic theory.
“It helps us to formulate our tasks in ways that suggest definite things to try next. For
example, to find the basis of economic rationality in the development of a social
institution directs our attention away from that dark subjective realm, where so many
economists have groped, to an objective realm, where behavior can be studied in the light
of common day. It shows the high promise of that effort to frame an ‘institutional theory’
of value which certain of our colleagues have began.” (Mitchell, 1916 [1937], p. 157)
Kyrk’s theory of consumption is an institutional theory in this manner described by Mitchell.
Throughout A Theory of Consumption, Kyrk offers an inquiry that is concerned with real
resources in a manner that the pecuniary organization of the economy is intertwined with and
Todorova-06-10-23
10
central to understanding the direction of industrial energies. In other words, this is an analysis of
the credit economy, where money is a dominant institution, yet non-monetary measures and
criteria are central to human lives. Monetary exchange enters the consumption process in a way
that creates a new area of problems and decision-making. That goes hand in hand with a
conceptual shift from “lightening calculators” to human agents with socially determined needs
and purposes, born into institutionally organized society, and bearing material and biological
consequences, as urged by Veblen in “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?” (1898).
Both Mitchell and Kyrk build on Veblen’s discussion of the pecuniary economy. In that
discussion, the importance of living humans and agency as well as the conceptual treatment of
money as a central institution, are two sides of the same coin. This link is worth noting because it
behooves the broad scope of Kyrk’s consumption theory in line with institutionalist critiques that
continue today. This strengthens the understanding of her place in original institutional
economics.
3. Business vs. Industrial Concerns and Needs
Analyzing money as an institution leads to the conceptual distinction between making goods
(industrial concern) and making money (business concern) - two connected, yet conflicting
processes (see Mitchel 1916 [1937] p. 173). This is a dichotomy present throughout Veblen’s
work (for example 2005 [1904]; 1964 [1914]; 2005 [1919]; 1923). It has informed contemporary
institutional analyses in different ways (for example see Sturgeon 2010). Making distinctions
between pecuniary (or ceremonial) and industrial (serviceable to life) valuation processes allows
for the identification of distinct vested interests and the social costs to the community or the
“common man”. In defining the subject matter of consumption Kyrk states that “… consumers
are all of us; consumers are simply the general public” (Kyrk, 1923; p. 1). From here Kyrk’s
discussion proceeds in greater semblance with Veblen’s common man, rather than “consumers,”
without the usual connotation of harmony and consumer sovereignty.
Indeed, Kyrk describes the new pecuniary logic of consumption resulting from business and
technological changes, where the general public is situated in an unequal position to business.
Todorova-06-10-23
11
“Supply precedes demand, and purchasers select from what is supplied. It is the producer
who discovers and utilizes new material resources, takes advantage of changes in the arts
and sciences, and carries on the experimenting and pioneering that is back of every new
commodity. Certainly, the individual consumer under such a system feel that his freedom
of action is only exercised upon terms laid down by the producer, and that the latter
controls the situation.” (Kyrk, 1923, p. 101).
Yet, while noting the significant limitation of consumers, and the centrality of demand creation
efforts by business concerns, Kyrk stresses that her discussion is not one that treats the general
public as empty vessels.
“Individuals as consumers are not blocks of stone or lumps of clay, but complexities of
propensities, interests and purposes, wise and foolish, acquired and innate, the result of
suggestions which have come to them from many sources. Profits lie not in opposing but
in seeking out these impulses and interests and furnishing modes of satisfaction.” (Kyrk,
1923 p. 105).
Similar points regarding salesmanship and human proclivities such as self-aggrandizement and
fear are pointed out in Veblen’s Absentee Ownership (1923, pp. 300-2). Those exemplify
continuity and synthesis in Veblen’s work outlined in the Theory of the Leisure Class (1899),
essays, as well as in the Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) and the Instinct of Workmanship
(2014). Both authors draw on John Dewey’s theory of habits of thought. It should be noted that
in Absentee Ownership Veblen refers to Human Nature and Conduct: an Introduction to Social
Psychology (1988 [1922]), though Veblen’s earlier work is influenced by Dewey too.
In discussing the complexity of humans, and particularly in her explanation of how consumption
standards change, Kyrk brings in some of Veblen’s conceptualizations of “instincts” or
proclivities, that he identified as regularities in different forms throughout human history. Those
are not always mentioned in Veblen’s terminology. For example, in describing the factors
leading to change in standards, she refers to the human tendency “to seek new experience and to
work out new values… change is suggested to the individual; he is placed in a receptive attitude
toward innovation” (Kyrk 1923, p. 249), and to the breaking down of convention and barriers for
new experiences. This resembles Veblen’s “idle curiosity” and given concern about problem-
solving - “workmanship” – Kyrk’s application in matters of consumption. Another example is
Todorova-06-10-23
12
“acquisitiveness” (p. 258), which depending on circumstances can be linked to invidious
distinction. Elsewhere, Kyrk invokes the instinct of workmanship (p. 78), as well as self-
preservation, when discussing basic needs.
Kyrk’s discussion is valid for understanding the role of salesmanship in changing consumption
standards. She emphasized the energy employed in salesmanship. In this, she stresses the
complexity of human nature. That is, her “consumers” are living humans capable of agency.
This is important in order to assert the possibility of institutional change and social response.
Kyrk discusses how individual consumers are detached, might lack information, and do not have
an effective mechanism of response to producers. This clearly is a different position from a
consumer sovereignty view. At the same time, Kyrk’s recognition of the centrality of producers
and their profit-seeking goals that govern the business enterprise, does not reduce the public to a
moldable mass. In that, her analysis is a continuation of Veblen’s urging for moving away from
passive lifeless conceptions.
Kyrk’s chapter on “The Producer’s Quest for Profit” in A Theory of Consumption discusses the
role of salesmanship and advertising in the creation of demand but does this while emphasizing
the multitude of factors that affect needs, including custom and social values. That is, in her
discussion of the emergence of consumption habits and standards, Kyrk does not put
conceptually the business enterprise in full power. Further, it is evident that Kyrk applies a
notion of process and people with historical time, as stressed by Veblen.
“But consumers are influenced by other forces than those set in motion by the merchants
who have goods to sell. Individuals, as consumers, are in their propensities, their
interests, purposes and scale of values, products of a diversity of forces converging upon
them from their total environment, past and present… There is no single factor that
explains this phase of human behavior; it is shaped and made what it is by all the varied
forces which determine individual attitudes and values.” (Kyrk 1923 p. 112)
This is a recognition that people’s consumption needs lie outside of the parameters of the
business concern and salesmanship. Veblen makes similar arguments throughout his work. He
discusses livelihood as a broader scope of economics than the business concern and ownership.
Todorova-06-10-23
13
In Veblen’s work, and I argue in Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption, there is an analytical
dichotomy (not dualism) between business concern (money, salesmanship, ownership) and the
industrial concern (the arts and means of livelihood). There is a dichotomy and conflict, but
importantly, there is an emphasis on connectedness and process. It is useful to make a distinction
between a dichotomy and dualism – a conception of separation and disconnect. So, the world of
money is not separate from the “real” economy, and money is a central institution in economic
theory. When money is conceptually unimportant there is either a conflation or an analytical
dualism that obfuscates the problems of consumption and hierarchies in the economy. The
importance of the concept of dichotomy is so we recognize different standards of valuation –
pecuniary vs. industrial and livelihood, without conceiving those as two separate entities. Indeed,
both are in continuous process (see also Todorova 2009).
This distinction, or dichotomy between pecuniary concerns and livelihood is present
conceptually in Veblen, Mitchell, and Kyrk. It should be noted, that is a dichotomy, rather than
dualism. In Veblen’s, Mitchell’s, and Kyrk’s discussions of the monetary economy, there is no
dualism between money and the real economy. The dichotomy between making money and
livelihood recognizes the vast effects of the business enterprise on people’s lives and on the
industrial means of livelihood. At the same time, the business concern is not treated as a deux ex
machina (Kyrk’s 1923, p. 111) that molds entirely moldable consumers. In these analyses of
process, the conception of living humans with agency, and the money economy with its different
forms of valuation are two sides of the same coin.
Kyrk’s conception of consumption standards allows for satisfying consumption needs outside of
the business enterprise, and therefore for institutional change that promotes non-pecuniary
valuation in policy. For example:
“When the state establishes free hospitals and free schools, it is pronouncing health and
education primary values which cannot be left to the uncertainties of the distribution of
individual incomes.” (Kyrk, 1923, p. 64)
Consequently, given Kyrk’s underlying conception of pecuniary and industrial concerns,
addressing social costs is not an afterthought (see p. 92-93), but an important point of the book.
Once again, this is to stress the broader scope of the book beyond socially determined standards
of consumption, which is rooted in the discussion of capitalist institutions.
Todorova-06-10-23
14
4. Distribution, Waste, and Consumption Standards
Kyrk positions distribution at the center of her theory of consumption. First, this is related
directly to the issue of consumer freedom. Kyrk (1923, p. 50) notes: “Real indeed is the freedom
of choice of those who can back up their desires with dollars.” Second, distribution is at the
center of her theory of consumption because Kyrk has a preconception of a stratified society.
“Distribution is fundamentally a problem of consumption which arose when production and
consumption were separated, when specialization and exchange became the order of the day.”
(Kyrk 1923, p. 47). Clearly, her discussion is based on a conception of a social surplus, along the
lines of Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class.
Veblen explains classes, and particularly the leisure class, as a result of the emergence of socially
produced surplus that can maintain those at an ostentatiously higher level of consumption. My
point is that Kyrk’s analyses of differences in consumption standards and her discussion of
income inequality are based on Veblen’s theory of distribution. Kyrk (1923, p. 53) directly
refers to Veblen’s theory of emulation and “invidious distinction”. This reference is not only
regarding individual emulation and insights into consumer behavior. It is about the distribution
of the social surplus and about a classed economy based on “pecuniary organization” (Kyrk,
1923, p. 54), which is central to Veblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class.
Veblen’s theory of invidious distinction is an alternative theory of distribution that abandons the
orthodox notion of productivity and the impersonal explanation of distribution. As pointed out by
Camic (2020, p. 293), constructing a new theory of economic distribution constituted the core of
Veblen’s work.
Instead, Veblen (1899 [1994]; 1914 [1964]; 1923) has a theory of surplus based on the joint
stock of knowledge, where “exploit”– “getting something for nothing” occurs through predation
and domination and represents claims of socially produced surplus – or “free income”. Exploit
conveys force and social strength and allows conspicuous leisure. Further, activities and
behaviors connoting exploit are emulated, because they afford a higher order of consumption and
leisure and support the command over people and resources. “Pecuniary employments” enable
those activities to become reputable and socially valued, while industrial employments and
“drudgery” convey lower status and even “blame”. Further, emulation of exploit creates waste
and deepens invidious distinction. Veblen’s consumption concepts are within this framework of
Todorova-06-10-23
15
distribution as well as his broader discussion of the long-term development of human systems. It
is not concerned with consumer choice per se.
Veblen’s ([1908] 2011) critique of theories of capital, productivity, distribution, and marginal
utility ([1909] 2011) informs his building of a complex theoretical system of analysis of human
systems throughout his work. His last book - Absentee Ownership – Business Enterprise in
Recent Times: The Case of America (1923) is an application of those critiques to the evolution of
the business enterprise and its social costs and the new order of financial capitalism – the credit
economy. Neither “human spirit” nor “gross material needs of human life” deflect the course of
“free income”. And absentee ownership puts a greater distance between the social costs and the
secured pecuniary gains (Veblen, 1923, p. 216 – 7).
In Veblen’s theory of institutional change persistence of invidious distinction results in
conservatism – undermining change of distribution towards greater equality, improving
industrial concerns, and reducing waste. In Veblen’s theory, there are also processes of survival
of non-invidious interest. One example that he discusses is women in education and suffrage
(1994 [1899], 203-21). Preservation of invidious distinction, or conservatism is supported by
vested interests, and part of that is reframing “free income” – interest, rents, (absentee)
ownership as productive and socially justified, rather than extractive. It is important to recognize
Veblen’s critique of economic theory as an influence on Kyrk’s theory and a reference point for
her concern with reducing waste.
Veblen’s analyses of industrial concerns providing the material basis of social surplus are echoed
in Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption. She ends the book by critiquing a view about inequality as a
source of the growth of surplus.
“We are told that such a surplus cannot exist unless it accrues in the hands of a favored
few by virtue of inequality in the distribution of income. This, it is said, is one of the
advantages of inequality, that it permits an experimentation in activities and modes of
living which would be impossible if the surplus were widely scattered.” (Kyrk, 1923, p.
293)
Kyrk’s attempt to reframe consumer freedom by stressing experiment through consumption
seems to be directed to an alternative to such justifications for inequality. It seems that more
Todorova-06-10-23
16
equal distribution would mean wider “experimentation” through wider distribution of leisure
time. While this is not explicitly stated at the end of the book, she concludes with the “hope that
the direction of the developing standard will be towards a higher level of human life” (Kyrk,
1923, p. 293).
Another aspect of the centrality of distribution in Kyrk’s theory of consumption is the direction
of life-sustaining resources and waste. Kyrk (1923, p. 51) is direct: “The waste of productive
energy under a system of great inequality is appalling.” Throughout the book, when describing
production and distribution of resources for consumption, Kyrk uses the term “energy”. This is
another indication of continuity with Veblen’s theory.
“The results of great inequality in income are amazing in the lack of economy and
efficiency with which productive resources are applied to the needs of society. It is a
matter of course that some have luxuries while other lack necessities; that some have the
‘material means for life and culture”, and others do not. Nor do the gains of the few
compensate for the losses of the many.” (Kyrk, 1923, p. 50)
Kyrk (1923, p. 50) gives credit for much of the economic inquiry that has made the point about
greater benefits of less unequal distribution. What is remarkable is her formulation in terms of
productive energy.
“However measured, in satisfaction or enjoyment or in welfare, it is difficult to conceive
that the ‘best’ use of productive energy would not have been in meeting the needs of a
larger number. The smaller number with the larger income have not only had more wants
satisfied and all wants more fully satisfied, but less urgent needs are gratified, caprice and
whim are met.” (Kyrk, 1923, p. 50)
In my view, Kyrk’s “productive energy” refers to the industrial concerns discussed by Veblen, as
well as Mitchell. Those can be understood as knowledge and a multitude of activities and
ecosystems that sustain lives. Such a broader understanding is present in Veblen’s conception
(1914 [1964]) and is demonstrated by Mitchel (1916 [1937], p. 174). Kyrk’s conception of
complex individuals with needs and agency, whose behavior cannot be entirely explained by the
Todorova-06-10-23
17
profit-seeking efforts of the business enterprise, means that we can attribute a broad conception
of life-sustaining “productive energies.” This is in line with Veblen’s theory where livelihood,
human spirit, and material needs of life take a backstage in the pecuniary economy. Kyrk’s work
is an extension of the theory that deals with the problem from the point of view of final
household consumption, livelihood, and human needs, and later on to applied work. Similarly,
Mitchell’s statistical work can be seen as an extension of institutional theory in an attempt to deal
with these human problems of livelihood.
5. Machine Process, Consumption Process, and “the Backward Art of Spending”
Kyrk is concerned with the evolution of business and technological processes described for
example by Veblen in The Theory of the Business Enterprise (2005[1904]) and in the Absentee
Ownership (1923). Her efforts are towards a theory of consumption that is able to speak to those
cumulative changes in terms of consumption.
Kyrk (1923, p. 79) notes the disadvantages to consumers given the standardization of production
- one of the features of the machine process discussed by Veblen. Those pertain to uniformity of
products and centralized product distribution and transportation. She basically invokes the
negative effects of cheaper mass production, in addition to the positive effects of breaking
barriers of access. At the same time, she points out the benefits of standardization of
consumption products driven by scientific reasons – for example in feeding infants (p. 81); or in
her argument for packaging later on.
In that, Kyrk (1939) emphasized the distinctions between consumers and businesses when
discussing the sale of packaged goods at the National Conference on Weights and Measures,
representing the American Home Economics Association. She notes that the consumer buyer is
far different from the buyers for retail regarding quantity, frequency, and specialization in
purchases.
“Buying by the consumer is but one of many activities and responsibilities. The consumer
buys not one commodity or related group of commodities but a wide variety of diverse
character, some only infrequently. The buying is in small quantity.” (Kyrk 1939, p. 87)
Todorova-06-10-23
18
Kyrk stresses the distinction between consumers and business enterprises to argue that the task of
making an informed choice about quantity, given varied and deceptive packaging, is even more
difficult for consumers. Based on this distinction and considering the extra energy consumers
ought to spend, she argues for standardization in packaging. The distinction stressed by Kyrk is
important. Indeed, in her explanation of the scope and purpose of research in home economics,
Kyrk argues that the family is the focus of research coming from different disciplines of the arts
and science.
“Home economics is the concept, the organization, that integrates and focuses… Home
economics represents rather the plan or the direction behind the research that gives it
point and meaning, that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts.” (Kyrk 1933b,
p. 86).
She notes that what distinguishes home economics is the “most direct concern to the health,
comfort, and well-being of the family” and their problems – “physiological, psychological,
economic, esthetic, and technological” (p. 85). The distinction between the family and business
enterprise is central in Kyrk’s analysis of consumption, and social change, as well as in her
vision of inquiry about household consumption and its place in economics.
As it has been noted (Velzen 2003, p. 49; Philippi 2021, p. 393), Kyrk echoes Mitchell’s “The
Backward Art of Spending Money” (1912 [1937]). Mitchell’s point is that expansion of the
business enterprise has commodified household consumption, yet the organization of spending
and consuming commodities is on unequal footage with the organization of the production and
salesmanship. Mitchell discusses the gender division of labor as a social norm that places women
in a disadvantaged position within the social organization of production and consumption.
Mitchell’s discussion accepts the gendered division of labor and women’s sphere in the
household as given, at least in his conceivable future, and proceeds to develop his argument
about the difficulties faced by the “housewife.” His discussion is patronizing to women but raises
the issue of the fundamental difference between the operation of the household concern and the
business enterprise, and a fundamental inequality of household consumption and business
processes. Mitchell points out: “The housewife’s tasks are much more varied than the tasks that
business organization assigns to most men.” (Mitchell 1912 [1937], p. 6). This is related to the
Todorova-06-10-23
19
small scale of purchases by one individual of a greater multitude of goods meant to address a
variety of household needs.
Another difference explained by Mitchell (1912 [1937], p. 7) is in the limitations of the usage of
labor-saving devices in the small household unit in contrast to the business enterprise, where
tasks are standardized. This “machine process” is discussed in Veblen’s Theory of the Business
Enterprise (1904), and the term figures in Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption (1923, p. 77).
Veblen discusses the machine process as a larger-scale production and standardization that goes
beyond the business enterprise and into a growing number of social aspects of life. Kyrk’s work
can be read as the consumption side of the machine process and its effects, as well as an
argument for standardization along the machine process that is aligned with problems and
criteria of livelihood.
Mitchell points to the advances in the production and the arts of salesmanship because of the
centralized business organization of production, in contrast to “the backward art” of spending
money or consumption. “What ability in spending money is developed among scattered
individuals, we dam up within the walls of the single household.” (Mitchell 1912 [1937], p. 10)
In that, he stresses the importance of consumption and the work around securing consumption.
He emphasizes a fundamental inequity in the capitalist economy, stemming from the position of
households as buyers of a multitude of commodities to meet their needs.
“Money-making is systematized… in terms of a common denominator - the dollar” (Mitchell,
1912 [1937], p. 12). “In making money, nothing but the pecuniary values of things however
dissimilar need be considered…” Spending on household consumption however is in monetary
terms, nonetheless, the gains consist not of profits, but in terms of “the bodily and mental well-
being” (p. 13). Further:
“Money income is a crude, tangible criterion of worth that all of us can understand and
apply. It needs a certain originality of character or a certain degree of culture to free us
even in a measure from the prevailing concern with commercial standards.” (Mitchell,
1912 [1937], p. 15).
Given this “incompleteness of imputation” (p. 14), Mitchell (p.16 -18) discusses instituting
improvements such as communal sharing and socialization of domestic tasks, responsibilities,
Todorova-06-10-23
20
and consumption activities; regulation of consumer goods; appropriate education, and “domestic
science.” Mitchell’s discussion is ultimately limited by a notion of a fixed domestic women’s
sphere of responsibility. Mitchell is concerned that only women of higher social classes would
have access to such domestic education. However, he ends the essay on a rather patriarchal note.
This contrasts with Kyrk’s work and with her career (see Nelson 1980; Lobdell 2000; Madden
2018), as well as with her openness to change, rather than fixed gender relations (van Velzen
2003 p. 51). Mitchell’s discussion also contrasts with Veblen’s ([1899] 1996, Ch. 13) discussion
of women’s education and participation in public life, as an example of the “survival of non-
invidious interests” and the “industrial” concern of the community.
6. Conclusion
The paper argued that foundational to Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption were Veblen’s urgings
for historical analysis of living systems, human agents, and cumulative processes, the distinction
between pecuniary vs. industrial valuation, as well as money as an institution. Wesley C.
Mitchell’s essays on spending and money make these conceptual links to institutional economic
theory even more evident. Kyrk, Veblen, and Mitchell address transformations in production and
related changes in the organization of consumption in the United States. All three authors are
concerned about the effects on people and their hierarchical positions in this changing process.
All locate consumption, spending, and households’ decisions within a socio-economic system.
All stress the unequal and qualitatively different positions of consumption and households in
relation to market production and business enterprises. All critique the utility approach to
economics as inadequate, not only for understanding behavior, but also the for the realities of a
pecuniary economy. All are concerned with the industrial aspects of consumption in relation to
the operations of the money-driven economy. And finally, all challenge the productivity theory
of distribution and production.
The paper advances a conceptual discussion of Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption in connection to
institutional economic theory, including the role of money - a central point also in Keynes. The
approach was to read the texts of Kyrk’s book, to treat Veblen’s work in its continuity and
interconnectedness; and to use Wesley Mitchell’s essays on spending and money to illuminate
the delineated conceptual links. Mitchell’s most prominent and recognized work is empirical and
Todorova-06-10-23
21
statistical. This work can be seen as an applied development or continuation of the questions
raised by Veblenian theory. Similarly, Kyrk built on Veblen and forming institutional thought, to
develop a theory of consumption, oriented to applied work. She continued, in a similar fashion as
Mitchell had, to practice applied institutional economics, but from the point of view of
households.
Central elements of institutional theory are the conception of living humans with agency; the role
of money; the distinction between pecuniary (ceremonial) and industrial (livelihood-oriented)
valuation; the generation and distribution of social surplus and stratification; processes and
cumulative causation; and waste and social costs. Kyrk’s book clearly developed in these
directions of Veblen’s work. Veblen’s The Theory of the Leisure Class is only one of his works
that is relevant for reading Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption. In addition, echoed in Kyrk’s book
are Veblen’s works on the critique of economic theory, ownership, employment, workmanship,
vested interests and the common man, the machine process, and the development of the business
enterprise.
While there has been recognition that Hazel’ Kyrk’s A Theory of Consumption builds on, uses, or
contributes to an institutional approach, the conceptual discussion of how her book is part of
institutional economics has been limited. There are two implications of bringing further attention
to the conceptual and theoretical connections to institutionalism.
First, when Kyrk’s work is revisited from a number of vantage points – consumption economics,
home economics, economics of the family - delineation of the Veblenian impact and extension of
his theory helps strengthen the relevance of institutionalism and brings attention to its
contemporary developments. The old institutional approach associated with Veblen and his
contemporaries has declined in influence (Rutherford 2011). Reasons for this include political
and professional pressures to heterodox approaches, which affected the institutional presence in
the discipline and the reproduction of doctoral students (Lee 2009, p. 34). However, the
development of institutional scholarship and heterodox economics has continued through
community building, establishment of new journals, and publications (for example see Sturgeon
1981; O’Hara 1999, p. 20-23 and Lee 2009, p. 189-206). Development of integrative research
programs influenced by Veblen are limited but undertaken and attempted. This includes, for
example, developing theories of institutional change, valuation, consumption, money, and the
Todorova-06-10-23
22
evolution of the business enterprise. Those developments are grounded in process and social
provisioning as the subject matter and method of economic inquiry (see for example O’Hara
2000; Sturgeon 2009; Todorova 2009; and Jo 2021, among others).
Another implication of delving into conceptual connections between A Theory of Consumption
and Veblen’s theory is the attention to his impact on refocusing (now heterodox) economic
inquiry on process and human needs. This has relevance for recognizing and better linking
Veblen’s work to approaches that develop around those concepts – such as feminist economics
(see Todorova 2015); as well as for understanding the importance of institutional theory in
studying contemporary consumption as a social process (see Todorova 2014). Those areas, and
particularly the relevance of Kyrk in light of institutional theory, need further development and
exploration across fields, approaches, and disciplines.
References
Camic, Charles. 2020. Veblen: The Making of an Economist Who Unmade Economics.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dewey, John. 1988 [1922]. Human Nature and Conduct: an Introduction to Social Psychology.
In: (ed). Jo Ann Boydston, John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899-1924, Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Edgell, Stephen. 2001. Veblen in Perspective: His Life and Thought. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Gruchy, Alan.1974 [1972]. Contemporary Economic Thought: The Contribution of Neo-
institutional Economics. Clifton: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.
Hamilton, Walter. 1919. “The Institutional Approach to Economic Theory. The American
Economic Review 9 (1): pp. 309-318.
Jo, Tae-Hee. 2021. “Veblen’s Evolutionary Methodology and Its Implications for Heterodox
Economics in the Calculable Future.” Review of Evolutionary Political Economy 2 (2): 277-295.
Todorova-06-10-23
23
Kuiper, Edith. 2022. A Herstory of Economics. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Kyrk, Hazel. 1923. A Theory of Consumption. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
__________. 1933a. Economic Problems of the Family. New York. Harper & Brothers
Publishers.
_________. 1933b. “The Selection of Problems for Home Economics Research.” Journal of
Home Economics 25 (8): 680-6.
_________. 1939. “Paper presented by Hazel Kyrk, Home Economics Department, University of
Chicago, representing the American Home Economics Association.” In: Standardization of
Packages. U.S. Department of Commerce, national Bureau of Standards. Miscellaneous
Publication M165, issued April 2, 1940, United States Government Printing Office (p. 85-7).
Lee, Frederic. 2009. A History of Heterodox Economics: Challenging the Mainstream in the
Twentieth Century. New York: Routledge.
Lobdell, Richard. 2000. “Hazel Kyrk,” in: Dimand, Robert, Marry Ann Dimand, Evelyn, Forget
(eds.) A Biographical Dictionary of Women Economists. New York: Edward Elgar (251-3).
Lower, Milton D. 1980. “The Evolution of the Institutionalist Theory of Consumption” in John
Adams, (ed.) Institutional Economics: Essays in Honor of Allan G. Gruchy. Boston: Martinus
Nijhoff Publishing (82 – 104).
Madden, Kirsten. 2018. “Women Economists of Promise? Six Hart, Schaffner and Marx Prize
Winners in the Early Twentieth Century.” In Madden, Kirsten and Dimand, Robert W. (eds.)
Routledge Handbook of the History of Women’s Economic Thought. New York: Routledge (250–
271).
Todorova-06-10-23
24
Mitchell, Wesley C. 1912 [1937]. “The Backward Art of Spending Money,” in Joseph Dorfman
(ed.) The Backward Art of Spending Money. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, Inc. (3-19).
_______________. 1916 [1937]. “The Role of Money in Economic Theory,” in Joseph Dorfman
(ed.) The Backward Art of Spending Money. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, Inc. (149-176).
Nelson, Elizabeth. 1980. “Hazel Kyrk.” In Barbara Sicherman and Carol Hurd Green (eds.).
Notable American Women: The Modern Period. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA (405-6).
O’Hara, Anthony Phillip. 1999. “Association for Evolutionary Economics and Association for
Institutional Thought,” in Philip Antony O’Hara (ed.) Encyclopedia of Political Economy. New
York: Routledge (20-23).
___________________. 2000. Marx, Veblen, and Contemporary Institutional Political
Economy: Principles and Unstable Dynamics of Capitalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
___________________. 2002. “The Contemporary Relevance of Thorstein Veblen’s
Institutional-Evolutionary Political Economy.” History of Economics Review 35 (1): 78–103.
Philippy, David. 2021. “Ellen Richards’s Home Economics Movement and the Birth of the
Economics of Consumption.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 43 (3): 378–400.
Rutherford, Malcolm. 2011. The Institutionalist Movement in American Economics, 1918-1947:
Science and Social Control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, Adam. 1984 [1759]. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, (eds). D. D. Raphael and A. L.
Macfie. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Sturgeon, James I. 1981. “The History of the Association of Institutional Thought.” Review of
Institutional Thought, volume 1 (40-53).
Todorova-06-10-23
25
_______________. 2009. “The Social Fabric Matrix, the Principles of Institutional Adjustment,
and Individual Action,” in: Scott Fullwiler, Wolfram Elsner and Tara Natarajan (eds).
Institutional Analysis and Praxis-The Social Fabric Matrix Approach. Springer (pp. 39-54).
Trezzini, Attilio. 2016. “Early Contributions to the Economics of Consumption as a Social
Phenomenon.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23 (2): 272–96.
Todorova, Zdravka. 2009. Money and Households in a Capitalist Economy: A Gendered Post
Keynesian – Institutional Analysis. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
_______________. 2013. “Conspicuous Consumption as Routine Expenditure and Its Place in
the Social Provisioning Process.” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 72 (5):
1183–1204.
_______________. 2014. “Consumption as a Social Process.” Journal of Economic Issues 48
(3): 663–78.
_______________. 2015. “A Veblenian Articulation of the Monetary Theory of Production.”
Post Keynesian Study Group, Working Paper # 1501,
https://www.postkeynesian.net/downloads/working-papers/PKWP1501.pdf.
van Velzen, Susan. 2003. “Hazel Kyrk and the Ethics of Consumption,” in Drucilla K. Barker
and Edith Kuiper (eds.) Toward a Feminist Philosophy of Economics. New York: Routledge.
Veblen, Thorstein. 1898 [2011]. “Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science?”, in Charles
Camic and Geoffrey M. Hodgson (eds.) Essential Writings of Thorstein Veblen. New York:
Routledge (pp. 143-157).
______________. 1899 [1994]. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Dover Publications
Inc.
______________. 1904 [2005]. The Theory of the Business Enterprise. New York: Cosimo
Classics.
Todorova-06-10-23
26
______________. 1908 [2011]. “Professor Clark’s Economics,” in Charles Camic and Geoffrey
M. Hodgson (eds.) Essential Writings of Thorstein Veblen. New York: Routledge (410-440).
______________. 1909. [2011]. “The Limitations of Marginal Utility,” in Charles Camic and
Geoffrey M. Hodgson (eds.) Essential Writings of Thorstein Veblen. New York: Routledge (pp.
513-524)
_______________. 1914 [1964]. The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts,
New York: A.M. Kelley.
_______________. 1919 [2005]. The Vested Interests and the Common Man. New York:
Cosimo Classics.
______________. 1923. The Absentee Ownership and Business Enterprise in Recent Times: The
Case of America. New York: Huebsch.
