'This book establishes, more thoroughly than any previous study, the breadth and importance of the interwar institutionalist movement in the United States. It is likely to become the standard work on an episode that is central to the history of American economics in the twentieth century.' Roger E. Backhouse, University of Birmingham
'Malcolm Rutherford's archival digging has yielded a rich harvest in fresh insights. An admirable performance!' William J. Barber, Wesleyan University
'Malcolm Rutherford's book is the best history yet written of American economics of the first half of the twentieth century. By exploding the myths that surround institutional economics, he has given us a fresh look at what American economics was and how it evolved in the three decades following the First World War.' Bradley W. Bateman, Denison University
'American institutionalism has often been viewed as a 'curiosity' - interesting to those intrigued by arcane and misguided ideas, but tangential to the economics mainstream. Rutherford's careful historical reconstruction places institutionalism much closer to the center of the discipline in America during the interwar years, showing how it was intertwined with other elements vying for the discipline's attention. Of equal interest is his account of its postwar marginalization, as the profession redefined and realigned itself relative to the other social sciences and new directions in the American polity.' Ross B. Emmett, James Madison College, Michigan State University
'With this meticulously researched piece of scholarship, Rutherford has fundamentally altered our understanding of the history of American institutionalism. This book will be the starting point for all subsequent work in the area, and the standard against which it will be measured.' Steven G. Medema, University of Colorado, Denver
'Rutherford has written a truly outstanding book on the Institutionalist Movement of the inter-war period that is unlikely to be surpassed! Of course there will be amendments here and there, but his interpretation of the central thrust of the Movement will remain unchanged.' Frederic S. Lee, History of Economic Thought and Policy
