Lessons from a history of histories of public finance
Marianne Johnson
Published online: 25 Sep 2026
The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought
https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2026.2699385
摘要
公共财政史（Histories of public finance）长期以来倾向于采用一种史学研究路径（a historiographic approach），该路径强调财政理论在特定国家制度、政治与文化语境中的嵌入性。
相比之下，现代公共经济学史（histories of modern public economics）倾向于反映近年来主导思想史与科学史的全球转向，这一转向的焦点是思想跨越国界的传播、适配与趋同。
为评估这些认知的有效性，我对公共财政史与公共经济学史的研究进行了梳理与分类。
本文得出三点结论。
第一，尽管存在广受认可的挑战，以国家为核心的叙事（nationally focused narratives）依然持续存在。随之而来的史学挑战在于，将公共财政实践中的 “国家传统”（national traditions） 与作为分析框架的 “国家史”（national histories） 分离开来。
第二，国家研究方法与全球研究方法应被视为互补而非替代，因为某些问题更适合采用其中某一种方法而非另一种。
第三，实践者史（practitioner histories）在塑造该领域范围与演进的叙事方面发挥了重要作用；它们也引发了史学层面的纠葛。
Histories of public finance have long tended to adopt a historiographic approach that emphasises the embeddedness of fiscal theory within specific national institutional, political and cultural contexts. In contrast, histories of modern public economics tend to reflect the global turn that has dominated intellectual and science history in recent years, where the focus is on the transmission, adaptation, and convergence of ideas across borders. To assess the validity of such perceptions, I survey and categorise histories of public finance and public economics. Three conclusions are drawn. First is the persistence of nationally focused narratives despite well-recognised challenges. The historiographic challenge that arises with these is to disentangle “national traditions” in the practice of public finance from “national histories” as an analytic framework. Second, national and global methodologies should be viewed as complements rather than substitutes, as some questions lend themselves better to one approach over another. Third, practitioner histories have played a significant role in shaping narratives of the scope and evolution of the field; they also engender historiographical entanglements.