[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-148108-105":59,"doc-detail-148108-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","historicising-the-money-of-account-a-rejoinder","Historicising the Money of Account - A rejoinder","","“Historicising the money of account—a rejoinder” addresses a dispute between Geoffrey Ingham and Stefano Sgambati regarding the interpretation of the money of account. It argues that Ingham misreads the earlier critique by treating the money of account as a universal monetary attribute. Instead, it presents the money of account as a late medieval European institution, then clarifies its historical specificity and ontological status by expanding prior arguments and refining historical sequences.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/historicising-the-money-of-account-a-rejoinder/148108/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/historicising-the-money-of-account-a-rejoinder/148108.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Violet","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-05","2026-08-26",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",16,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is the central dispute addressed in this rejoinder?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The rejoinder responds to Geoffrey Ingham’s defense of a nominalist ontology of money and challenges his reading of an earlier critique about the money of account.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Does the document treat the money of account as universal or historically specific?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"It argues that the money of account is not universal; it is a historically specific institution of late medieval and early modern times.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How does the rejoinder use historical evidence from medieval Europe?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"It discusses the Carolingian lira-soldi-denarii metric and, drawing on Marc Bloch, explains why this metric should not be treated as a genuine money of account.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},148108,1787775173,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":39,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":46,"preview_page_count":4},4398048950312,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/400002538284de19e3c?_k=1778320343897328908","City Research Online  \nCity St George’s, University of London  \nCitation: Sgambati, S. (2022) . Historicizing the money of account—a rejoinder. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 45(2), pp. 329-337. doi: 10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071  \nThis is the accepted version of the paper.  \nThis version of the publication may differ from the final published version. To cite this item please consult the publisher's version.  \nPermanent repository link: [https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/27072/](https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/27072/)[ ](https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/27072/)Link to published version: [https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071](https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2021.1993071)  \n[Copyright and Reuse:](Copyright and Reuse: Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author)[ Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author](Copyright and Reuse: Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author)([s](s)) and/or copyright holders. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge, unless otherwise indicated, provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. For full details of reuse please refer to City Research Online policy.  \nCity Research Online:  [http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/](http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/  publications@citystgeorges.ac.uk)[ ](http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/  publications@citystgeorges.ac.uk)[ publications@citystgeorges.ac.uk](http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/  publications@citystgeorges.ac.uk)  \nHistoricising the money of account – A rejoinder  \nStefano Sgambati  \nAbstract  \n“In Defence of the Nominalist Ontology of Money” by Geoffrey Ingham (published by the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics in 2021) contends that “Historicising the Money of Account: A Critique of the Nominalist Ontology of Money”(published by the same journal in 2020) is based on misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and imprecisions. The core proposition in “Historicising the Money of Account” is that the money of account, which is generally understood to be a universal attribute of money, is in fact an institution of late medieval and early modern times that has no significant equivalent in today’s world (or in the ancient world, for that matter) . This reply is intended to provide further clarification on the historical and ontological specificity of the late medieval institution of the money of account.  \n***  \nIn Historicizing the Money of Account: A Critique of the Nominalist Ontology (Sgambati 2020), I argue that the money of account is not a universal attribute of money but a historically specific institution of late medieval Europe. In this connection, I criticise Geoffrey Ingham’s account of the development of money from the ancient world down to modern times (see Sgambati 2020: 12-14) . For Ingham, the development of monetary practices and institutions is always kicked off with the establishment of a money of account (by an authority), which over time may lead to the consolidation of monetary means of payment and exchange. Ingham identifies two main developmental sequences over the past five thousand years: one that goes from the establishment of monies of account in the ancient Near East to the development of coinagebased monetary systems in classical antiquity; the other that goes from the re-establishment of a money of account by Charlemagne at the end of the eighth century in Western Europe to the development of credit-money systems in modern and contemporary times. Ingham thus sees the establishment of the Carolingian lira-soldi-denarii (or pound-shillings-pence) metric in the early Middle Ages as the beginning of a new era of monetary developments that will culminate with the establishment of capitalist credit-money several centuries later.  \nMy critique of Ingham’s general his","cbCaiufz9l4ASPag","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiufz9l4ASPag","pdf",281643,"English","# Abstract\n## Reply to Ingham’s critique\n## Money of account as a historically specific institution\n## Carolingian metric and the critique of “imaginary money”\n## Bloch and Einaudi theoretical connections","[{\"question\":\"What is the central dispute addressed in this rejoinder?\",\"answer\":\"The rejoinder responds to Geoffrey Ingham’s defense of a nominalist ontology of money and challenges his reading of an earlier critique about the money of account.\"},{\"question\":\"Does the document treat the money of account as universal or historically specific?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that the money of account is not universal; it is a historically specific institution of late medieval and early modern times.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the rejoinder use historical evidence from medieval Europe?\",\"answer\":\"It discusses the Carolingian lira-soldi-denarii metric and, drawing on Marc Bloch, explains why this metric should not be treated as a genuine money of account.\"}]","Historicising the Money of Account - A rejoinder | PDF"]