We commonly assume that the UK lead world economics in the 19th century. Blaug shows that Germany and France were ahead of UK in some topics. The image and meaning of the so-called marginal revolution must be changed. My question above is related to re-considering marginal revolution in 1870's. What is your opinion? What does it mean for the economics of today?    

When I say that appearance of demand and supply diagram was retarded to that of Germany, it does not  stand for that English economics was retarded. On the contrary, I think this fact positively. English speaking economics had some strength  with respect to utility and marginalist temptation. My hypothesis is it was the wide acceptance of Ricardo's economics.

My conference presentation Why di Ricardian Revolution fail?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299339677_Why_did_Ricardian_Revolution_fail?

hinted that it was only English speaking world which really incorporated Ricardo's economics and that is the reason that maginalist and utility theory can emerged in in Germany and France, where the influence of Ricardo's economics was very weak.  

This last point is confirmed for German and Austrian case by Kurz's paper German and Austrian schools  (See Kurz's post in the question How do you characterize and estimate the marginal revolution in economics?)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_characterize_and_estimate_the_marginal_revolution_in_economics

The French case is given given by Gilbert Faccarello's paper 

Nous marchons sur un autre terrain. The Reception of Ricardo in the French Language: Episodes from a Complex History 

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280111347_Nous_marchons_sur_un_autre_terrain_The_Reception_of_Ricardo_in_the_French_Language_Episodes_from_a_Complex_History?

Presentation Why did Ricardian Revolution fail?

Chapter Nous marchons sur un autre terrain. The Reception of Ricardo...

Many books in history of economic theory are written in what historians of science call “Whig interpretation of history”. They prefer to explain how a present idea (a theory or a tool of analysis) was first conceived and developed. They assume implicitly that neoclassical economics is superior to classical economics. This may be true In many occasions, but we must reverse these assumptions when the core framework of economics is concerned..

A typical example of Whig history is Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis. I do not doubt his erudition, but he described the history of economic as a development of equilibrium analysis. Equilibrium analysis is now one of principal epistemological obstructs for a further development of economics. From this point of view, we should dig out alternatives to equilibrium analysis.

In the same vein, we may think that classical economics had possibilities which were lost out of sight. If we succeed in these trials, history of economic thought can be a research at the cutting edge of economics.

My working paper Mill's Reversion and an Origin of Neoclassical Revolution (see below) traces how the turn of economics from that of production to exchange took place from an internalist point of view. My basic understanding is that neoclassical revolution was in fact a return to an old pre-scientific common sense if you called it law of demand and supply or not. English economics remained loyal to Ricardo’s economics and that may explain the reason why subjective theory of value was late to emerge as mathematical economics in the United Kingdom.

Terms internalist and externalist express two ways of explaining development of a science in the history of science. We can use these terms usefully in the history of economic theories. There are many papers and books that explain arrival of neoclassical economics from socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. Philip Mirowski’s book More Heat than Light is such an example. My paper tries to find a “logical” development of theories. In this sense, my working paper takes distance from two main stances in the history of economics. I would like to know your impression on this new trial.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305810200_Mill%27s_Reversion_and_an_Origin_of_Neoclassical_Revolution?

Working Paper An Origin of the Neoclassical Revolution: Mill's "Reversion"...

Germany was leading scientifically in 1800-beginning of 1900 in Math, Physics, Chemistry, and pretty much everything, Hitler's exile of Jewish scientists made US what it is now.

Dear Sergey Popov,

Yes, you are right. Germany has succeeded in university renovation whereas English did not. Mathematical education in England remained in a low level. This gives one reason why introduction of mathematics in economics was rather retarded. However, this is externalist explanation.  I do not exclude these explanations, because in any scientific development both external and internal forces are working.

I have an impression that history of economic thought gives undue weight to external explanations. My paper on Mill's reversion is a trial to invert this trend.