----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I have read Roy Weintraub's editorial* which he refers to in an earlier message.  I now
think I understand his position as regards what constitutes work in the history of
economics.  In response, I want to say that I agree that there is a distinction between
work that applies the concepts and analytical frameworks of the great thinkers of the past
to current problems in political economy and work that applies to economics what we can,
using shorthand, call the history of science method (although there is also work that
qualifies as both).  But is there not also a tradition within the history of economic
thought (is this the same as the history of economics, by the way?), that lies somewhere
in the borderlands between these two, that is 'legitimate' history of economics, and yet
is infused with an implicit purpose (i.e., how can these ideas inform our understanding of
actual economies)?  This work suggests the possible fruitfulness of some idea or ideas,
rather than putting forward a complete application of them.  Two current historians of
economics who have done work in this tradition are Robert Heilbroner and Ingrid Rima.
 
Both Heilbroner and Rima may be thought of as continuing in the tradition of, e.g., Adolph
Lowe.  His article "The Classical Theory of Economic Growth" (Social Research, 21, 1954),
is legitimate history of thought--as he remarks, the growth 'models' in many of the
classical economists' writings have to be pieced together from bits here and there--yet
there is also the suggestion (sometimes explicit in this kind of work, but often implicit)
that this is not a mere admiration of antique furniture--valuable as that can be in and of
itself.  In this case, Lowe suggests that the dynamic method of the classics may be
recoverable and useful for analyzing modern industrial systems. Likewise, Heilbroner's own
articles on Smith ("The Socialization of the Individual in Adam Smith," HOPE, 14, 1982;
"The Paradox of Progress," in A. Skinner and T. Wilson, eds. Essays on Adam Smith, 1975),
read as being in this tradition.  In the final sentence of the 1982 paper, which offers
another take on 'Das Adam Smith Problem,' Heilbroner writes that "This dilemma [in Smith,
identified by the author as the achievement of social cohesion at the price of social
compassion] is not only Smith's problem but our own as well," suggesting if not the
applicability of Smith's analysis, at least a reminder of its continuing ability to raise
issues of relevant concern.  Many on the list will think of other examples, from some of
Keynes's Essays in Biography and even portions of Marx's Theories of Surplus Value to
Allyn Young, Piero Sraffa, and Nathan Rosenberg.
 
I just now received Roy's latest message, assuring me that it is "not that complicated,":
"a dissertation in HE...would not be considered economics." Since "Training in
economics...is associated with learning particular core tools of the discipline, and
employing them in a dissertation" (which we are reminded is very hard work that takes up
all the students' time so none is leftover for HET), and "a dissertation in HE does not
employ the economist's tools (but rather employs the historian's tools)" (also hard work
that takes a long time), this work
"would not be appropriate for a Ph.D. in Economics."  This suggests that historians of
economics do not benefit from learning, or even need to learn, the core tools of the
discipline and how to apply them.  I am not saying that one who comes to the study of the
HET from the standpoint of
the history of science, without learning the core tools of economics and how to employ
them, has nothing valuable to offer, I am simply saying that coming at it from within
economics is a valid route to the study of the history of the discipline as well, and an
important one at that (I don't need to remind members of this list of the important
contributions by many of the leading figures in the development of our discipline's core
tools and their application also to the history of economics, e.g., Hicks, Baumol,
Leontief, Samuelson).
 
The fact of the matter is that both the ideas of the past and the 'disciplines' that study
them are alive and evolving, and there are multiple 'legitimate' paths to, and varieties
of, the HET, all of which must be evaluated according to the (alive, evolving) standards
of sound (and original) scholarship.  That many historians of economic thought find in the
ideas of the past what constitute alternatives to the "particular core tools of the
discipline" may be an irritant to Roy, but it is a tradition with a solid history and an
ongoing vitality.
 
I want to express my appreciation to Roy for his frank assessment of the issues and his
participation in this dialogue, and also apologize to the list and its moderator for the
number and length of my messages on this topic.
 
 
Mat Forstater 
 
 
*(http://www.eh.net/HE/hes_list/Editorials/weintraub.php ) 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]